Support NeoGAF

[Aeonin]

I don't think those fall under the definition of evidence. Those would be the materials used in my experiment.

I don't really get your point here. Look at the bolded. You seem to be arguing that it is currently impossible to find evidence of an intelligent designer given our current tools. So what are you expecting scientists to do?

Given what you quoted of me, why would you think I'm expecting scientists to even begin to discover anything today? Hell, I even used the example of 1000 years later.

All I'm saying is, it is indeed possible, and one day will be provable for or against. In my first post here I said plainly that ID should only get a mention.

Is it something that we should banish from all human understanding and never mention it to our children because there is no evidence for it? Or should we just keep it in history and philosophy for future generations to pick up and do the hard work of figuring out?

Because it was Plato who thought of angels fitting on the tip of a pen. And now we're just barely scratching the surface of nano and pico processes.

And when we do pick ID up and figure it out with future tools and understanding, should we automatically assume that whatever may have created or influenced us - is also an all powerful being that created the universe and the very fabric of time?

 

[soul creator]

You sure are bringing a ton of assumptions into this.

1. GOD exists outside of space and time.
2. We can NEVER EVER get out of space and time.
3. We can NEVER EVER find anything outside of space and time.
4. Whatever may have possibly created us, certainly exists outside of space and time.
5. Whatever may have possibly created us, can not be found if it didn't want to.
6. God is all powerful and conscious being.


Widen your horizons and chuck your assumptions out the window. God, as pertaining to the discussion about Intelligent Design, is simply a more intelligent being that created us. Take your religious assumptions out of the equation please.

well why use religiously loaded terms like God in a discussion about the origins of the universe/life/etc.?

You say to not bring "religious assumptions" into the word God, when pretty much 99% of the world's definition of "god" comes from the thousands of religions human beings have created.

Seems like it would be more productive to just call the origins of the universe...the origins of the universe, and leave the religious language behind. Would make for much easier communication (just see all the people who think Einstein was some type of Christian, simply because he used the word "god"). If we find out that the "intelligent beings" that created us were aliens from planet zorton, I seriously doubt the 6 billion people on this earth are gonna be like "welp, I guess we found god!". They'll just do what they always do and redefine god to say it created the zortonians or something. Cuz that's what people do, and have always done with "god".

I could call the origins of the universe "an apple", it wouldn't work that well if I'm actually interested in communicating with people. Or should people leave their "fruity assumptions" out of the equation when using the word apple?

 

[The Technomancer]

Given what you quoted of me, why would you think I'm expecting scientists to even begin to discover anything today? Hell, I even used the example of 1000 years later.

All I'm saying is, it is indeed possible, and one day will be provable for or against. In my first post here I said plainly that ID should only get a mention.

If we mentioned every theory that was possible but not plausible, we would be talking forever.
With that said, I agree that ID deserves mention in a cultural studies sense, alongside other belief systems.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Talking of evolution, I was surprised to learn the origin of language was such a contentious issue. It's a fascinating question

 

[Aeonin]

well why use religiously loaded terms like God in a discussion about the origins of the universe/life/etc.?

You say to not bring "religious assumptions" into the word God, when pretty much 99% of the world's definition of "god" comes from the thousands of religions human beings have created.

Seems like it would be more productive to just call the origins of the universe...the origins of the universe, and leave the religious language behind. Would make for much easier communication (just see all the people who think Einstein was some type of Christian, simply because he used the word "god"). If we find out that the "intelligent beings" that created us were aliens from planet zorton, I seriously doubt the 6 billion people on this earth are gonna be like "welp, I guess we found god!". They'll just do what they always do and redefine god to say it created the zortonians or something. Cuz that's what people do, and have always done with "god".

I could call the origins of the universe "an apple", it wouldn't work that well if I'm actually interested in communicating with people. Or should people leave their "fruity assumptions" out of the equation when using the word apple?

I said not to bring religious assumptions into the concept of a GOD pertaining to Intelligent Design. How about I keep using "whatever may have possibly created or influenced us" every time? So sure, if you want to bring up that semantic front - I agree. But are we really changing this argument to one of semantics and communication. If you read my post I'm pretty damn specific about what I mean when I say GOD. Heck, I even started using ID GOD.

But even then you're STILL mistaken by using religious assumptions. The origins of the universe and the origins and evolution of us don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. I'm saying, don't bring THAT (religious assumptions) into it.

Einstein isn't who he was because he was the best communicator. And who gives a crap what people thought of him?

So sure, people will do different things when it comes to 'God'. People's reaction is of no consequence to this discussion. I'm talking about Intelligent Design, not the end all be all surpreme being of the universe. And if people want to take a word that has so many meanings (GOD, which heck lets lump Zeus into or the Sun) different, then its up to me to make sure my point is coming across. Which I think I've done all in that post you quoted of me.

Obviously the entire world has a different definition of GOD. So saying that is surely loaded, and also meaningless until we give it meaning.

 

[CornBurrito]

All I'm saying is, it is indeed possible, and one day will be provable for or against. In my first post here I said plainly that ID should only get a mention.

I'm not so sure that is true.

 

[Aeonin]

If we mentioned every theory that was possible but not plausible, we would be talking forever.
With that said, I agree that ID deserves mention in a cultural studies sense, alongside other belief systems.

How about we mention every theory that has been postulated by every single civilization since the dawn of time?

Because yeah, mentioning every baseless non-evidential possibility is a waste of time. IE: The unicorn poop.

Weird that we're all OK with talking about time travel, or extra-dimensions, or whats on the other side of the black hole - but if you mention intelligent design you'll get a face-full of verbal spat. They're all possible but not plausible.

Only in this discussion to people try to pull out that, 'well lets just all mention everything now' card.

 

[Aeonin]

I'm not so sure that is true.

Hey Obsessed, have a little faith. lol.

Thanks for the discussion guys, I gotta cook dinner. Laters.

 

[Fusebox]

Excellent work by Dawkins and Attenborough.

This was a battle that should never have been required to fight in this day and age in a developed nation, but a great outcome nonetheless.

 

[Dan Yo]

Every single time I see the Creationism problem brought out, I always think this has to be one of those protestant things. I went to Catholic schools when I was a child and they never ever taught us anything other than the proper Evolution theory. The creation of the world by the Bible was always a religion-class matter, and nothing more than that.

All this fuzz about Creationism is so, so alien-like. For me, it's something hard to understand.

I went to a Catholic school as well. Not only was the curriculum far more advanced than public schools, but we were also taught about evolution. Evolution and the Big Bang theory were not taught as alternative belief systems, but as coterminous with Catholic beliefs. Heck, the Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic Priest.

I do agree that a few other denominations seem to be more extreme and more literal in their interpretations of the Bible. They tend to give all of Christianity a bad name.

 

[Korey]

I can understand where you're coming from but I think you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean to pick and choose what is literal fact and what is allegorical. I meant not to look at any part of it as literal fact, but look at the whole thing for a metaphorical guide as to how to live your life.

Getting literal facts from religion was fine hundreds of years a go, but we have a scientific process which makes it pointless and counter productive now. We can all agree on that, so I'm not in any way people look at something from a holy book and take it as fact when we have better evidence available.

That's great, but you're talking about yourself. One person. And if you take it as a "metaphorical guide as to how you live your life" it doesn't seem you're even very religious.

You should tell that to the, what...70% of people in America that believe it's the literal word of God and dictate our national policies based on it?

 

[Zzoram]

Ad ignorantiam

The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.

UFO proponents are probably the most frequent violators of this fallacy. Almost all UFO eyewitness evidence is ultimately an argument from ignorance – lights or objects sighted in the sky are unknown, and therefore they are alien spacecraft.

Intelligent design is almost entirely based upon this fallacy. The core argument for intelligent design is that there are biological structures that have not been fully explained by evolution, therefore a powerful intelligent designer must have created them.

In order to make a positive claim, however, positive evidence for the specific claim must be presented. The absence of another explanation only means that we do not know – it doesn’t mean we get to make up a specific explanation.

This.

 

[Orayn]

How about we mention every theory that has been postulated by every single civilization since the dawn of time?

Doesn't matter. Lots of those civilizations have also postulated the existence of dragons, but we don't devote serious scientific inquiry to them just because they're a long-lived idea.

Weird that we're all OK with talking about time travel, or extra-dimensions, or whats on the other side of the black hole - but if you mention intelligent design you'll get a face-full of verbal spat. They're all possible but not plausible.

Who said we were okay with those? None of those things are widely accepted or agreed upon.

 

[Zzoram]

I went to a Catholic school as well. Not only was the curriculum far more advanced than public schools, but we were also taught about evolution. Evolution and the Big Bang theory were not taught as alternative belief systems, but as coterminous with Catholic beliefs. Heck, the Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic Priest.

I do agree that a few other denominations seem to be more extreme and more literal in their interpretations of the Bible. They tend to give all of Christianity a bad name.

Catholic schools are the only modern religious schools I have any respect for. The Catholic Church is the most progressive large scale religious organization when it comes to acceptance of science.

Now they just need to back off their anti-condom stance and they're pretty golden. At least they oppose condoms on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones.

 

[Kinitari]

You sure are bringing a ton of assumptions into this.

1. GOD exists outside of space and time.
2. We can NEVER EVER get out of space and time.
3. We can NEVER EVER find anything outside of space and time.
4. Whatever may have possibly created us, certainly exists outside of space and time.
5. Whatever may have possibly created us, can not be found if it didn't want to.
6. God is all powerful and conscious being.

Widen your horizons and chuck your assumptions out the window. God, as pertaining to the discussion about Intelligent Design, is simply a more intelligent being that created us. Take your religious assumptions out of the equation please.

Take note of this small discovery:
http://io9.com/5873410/breakthrough-cloaking-device-creates-a-hole-in-light-and-time

And realize where we were 1000 years ago, and where we'll be 1000 years from now. Alot closer to what you consider to be 'never'.

ALSO NOTE: EVERYTHING that now know, was once completely unknown to us.

You started this chain by saying "Too bad scientists aren't spending anytime looking for God"

The shift in your goalposts are astronomical.

Is it no longer looking for God, and now just looking for whatever occurred before the big bang? Because there are plenty of people who are asking those sorts of questions - scientists even.

 

[phisheep]

No it doesn't. That's the point. You can't say that page 28 is allegorical but page 100 is fact, when it says on page 3 that the entire book is all true.

The only two intellectually honest options are to go entirely literal fundamentalist and start stoning people for collecting sticks on the sabbath, or classify the entire thing as a fable.

No, that's just plain bad logic. It's just as feasibly intellectually honest to doubt what it says on page 3 and take the rest at whatever value it appears to have in the light of evidence.

If some editor had put a footnote in chapter 3 of the Origin of Species saying "everything in this book is true" that would neither validate nor invalidate the rest of the book.

By the way, the moon is made of cheese and the whole of this post is true.

 

[Mael]

I went to a Catholic school as well. Not only was the curriculum far more advanced than public schools, but we were also taught about evolution. Evolution and the Big Bang theory were not taught as alternative belief systems, but as coterminous with Catholic beliefs. Heck, the Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic Priest.

I do agree that a few other denominations seem to be more extreme and more literal in their interpretations of the Bible. They tend to give all of Christianity a bad name.

Seriously the 1rst time I heard about the creationists, I couldn't even believe it.
It seemed....foreign like an issue you people have in the US or something.
From my POV there never was any debate at all to be had, heck I'm even surprised that there's a thread dedicated to a policy about it.
Heck I'm surprised a policy banning something that should never even be considered is passed at all.

 

[phisheep]

From my POV there never was any debate at all to be had, heck I'm even surprised that there's a thread dedicated to a policy about it.
Heck I'm surprised a policy banning something that should never even be considered is passed at all.

It goes back to this thing last year.

 

[Korey]

No, that's just plain bad logic. It's just as feasibly intellectually honest to doubt what it says on page 3 and take the rest at whatever value it appears to have in the light of evidence.

If some editor had put a footnote in chapter 3 of the Origin of Species saying "everything in this book is true" that would neither validate nor invalidate the rest of the book.

By the way, the moon is made of cheese and the whole of this post is true.

That's a bad analogy.

Christians pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to believe in, or is most convenient to believe in.

Oops, science makes that chapter that forms the basis of our religion seem really dumb? "It's a metaphor."

Oh, we want to each shellfish? "Let's make up a reason why that rule no longer applies."

It's frowned upon to own slaves now? "*thinks up reason to try and justify why it was ok back then*"

 

[Uchip]

That's a bad analogy.

Christians pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to believe in, or is most convenient to believe in.

Oops, science makes that chapter that forms the basis of our religion seem really dumb? "It's a metaphor."

Oh, we want to each shellfish? "Let's make up a reason why that rule no longer applies."

It's frowned upon to own slaves now? "*thinks up reason to try and justify why it was ok back then*"

how else would be know right from wrong?
....oh

 

[ZealousD]

I have no problem with Creationism being taught as an alternative to Evolution.

...in a Philosophy class. Get that shit out of the Science Lab.

 

[JGS]

So spewing superstition as science is a "fake danger"?

You say that like it's some kind of universal threat. in the context of where it MIGHT be happening, it's definitely a fake danger. When it becomes a cover story for Scientific American, I'll apologize.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!