| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"explorerthedog" |
| Date: |
29 Sep 2005 08:20:14 PM |
| Object: |
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
Science frequently uses mathematical probabilities in order to arrive
at its conclusions. They are a standard part of scientific research.
You can be scientific without necessarily conducting experiments. If
you don't believe this, then search the Internet for
http://www.google.com/search?&q=science+mathematical+probabilities and
see what you get.
But first, before we do any computations, we need some background . . .
"Intelligent Design" is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of
science or religion. It is a broad view of the universe and everything
in it, with the fundamental belief that there was some sort of
intelligent entity which somehow guided and controlled the creation and
development of the entire universe, according to an Intelligent Design.
The Greek philosopher Plato clearly outlined what we now call
"Intelligent Design" in his dialogue,"Timaeus," where he refers to a
"creator," who exists outside of time and who created all of the
material universe, at the beginning of time according to a plan. (see
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/tmeus11.txt. Skip the
translator's lengthy introduction and go directly to the text of Plato,
beginning with the words "First then, in my judgment.") Plato, as you
remember, was a philosopher, not a religious leader. And Intelligent
Design is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of religion or of
science.
Yes, most religions do have a belief in some kind of Intelligent
Designer who created the universe at the beginning of time; but they
differ on many things beyond that point. The religion of Atheism,
however, denies that there is any sort of Intelligent Designer, because
that would clearly suggest a God, which Atheism does not accept.
Maybe this Intelligent Designer was the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "One
God;" and maybe not. Intelligent Design does not specify which, if any,
god(s) were involved; only that some sort of Intelligent Designer was
in control.
A believer in Intelligent Design would say, as I do, that all the
processes which Science tries to understand, and all the laws governing
the universe, were created by this Intelligent Designer. For what
purpose, if any? Who knows? Intelligent Design does not say. What does
the Intelligent Designer want from us, if anything? Who knows?
Intelligent Design does not say.
Science is only a means of understanding that which was created by
Intelligent Design. Science is not an end in itself. It is not the
responsibility of Intelligent Design to follow the methods of Science,
but the responsibility of Science to understand and explain that which
was created by Intelligent Design.
Now, back to the calculations of scientific probabilities . . .
In Probability, if an event is certain to occur, it has a probability
of 1. If it is certain not to occur, it has a probability of 0. If it
has a fifty-percent chance of occurring, it has a probability of .5. So
the chance of getting a "head" in any one coin toss is .5. To find the
probability of multiple events happening together, we multiply all of
the individual probabilities together. So the chance of tossing two
heads in a row is .5 times .5, or .25; and the chance of tossing five
heads in a row is .5 X .5 X.5 X.5 X .5, or .03125, or about three
percent.
Look now at the world, and see if it could possibly all have happened
by chance. Look first at the earth itself, with its perfect atmosphere
to sustain life; perfect temperature for life; perfect cycle of night
and day; perfect cycle of seasons; perfect soil for growing crops; fish
to eat in the rivers and oceans; animals to eat on the earth; perfect
amount of water for drinking, provided by an amazing water-supply
system, with built-in purification; beautiful flowers and other things
for our pleasure; trees for shade; breezes for refreshment; just the
right nutrients in the food we eat; natural remedies in the plants, to
cure our diseases;a perfect built-in clean-up system, using rain,
rivers, oceans, and clouds; and on and on and on, without end.
The odds that all of these things could come together at the same time
by chance is about one in a million zillion, whatever tiny amount that
might be. So even if we do not consider the staggering complexity of
biological life, it is statistically impossible that our earth simply
happened by chance, or by any imagined combination of pre-existing
natural processes.
Surely King David of Israel was right when he wrote two times in the
Bible, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms
14:1, Psalms 53:1 KJV)
Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Who created all things.
Rev. Bill McGinnis <><
bmcgin@patriot.net
This page is brought to you by LoveAllPeople.org,
God's One Law For Everyone: "Love All People As Yourself."
LoveAllPeople.org maintains hundreds of web pages and files for the
benefit of all people. All our original messages and web pages are
"free to copy, free to use, free to download." Most are in the Public
Domain.
LoveAllPeople.org - http://www.loveallpeople.org
SITE MAP - http://www.loveallpeople.org/chapellinks.html
ETHICS & HUMAN RELATIONS - POLITICS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS - CHRISTIAN -
AUTOMOTIVE - LEGAL SERVICES - GENERAL INTEREST - PUBLISHING &
CONSULTING - AFFILIATES
HTTP://WWW.LOVEALLPEOPLE.ORG
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
14 Oct 2005 01:48:25 PM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:%ru%e.862$MM3.526@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:zAr%e.11897$uD2.9894@fe05.lga...
explorerthedog wrote:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
You're misusing the concept of 'mathematical probabilities'.
For example, what's the probability that, if I pour water over a rock in
my kitchen, it will just wear away? Of course, it's zero.
But, water can, over billions of years, wear rock away quite easily.
What's the difference? Your misuse of 'mathematical probabilities' does
not include the concept of time.
Likewise, if I watch a spot of ground on the earth, what's the
probability that life will just appear in that spot? Why, mostly 0.
But over time, and lets try the 4.5 billion years the earth has been
around, life will evolve with 100 percent certanty.
And you know this; how? Ever heard of the statement,
by Louis Pasteur: "life comes only from pre-existing life".
There is no hard empirical evidence that even one
exception has ever been observed; even in the 4.5 billion
years of the earth's history.
A "Statement", by ANYONE, means nothing!
Scientific claims - backed by facts and evidence are the only things that
have "real" meaning.
The experiment linked to that particular observation was SEVERELY FLAWED -
as is your use of it.
When has "god" ever been observed (using VALID and testable evidence only
..... not your circular reasoning bible babble)?
That we "didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen as the evidence shows.
If a tree falls in the words - and I don't see it happen - the EVIDENCE
tells me what happened.
What are the "odds" for a god happening?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
01 Oct 2005 05:46:51 PM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:DBy%e.901$MM3.722@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rzu%e.1003$sL3.745@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:%ru%e.862$MM3.526@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:zAr%e.11897$uD2.9894@fe05.lga...
explorerthedog wrote:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in
the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
You're misusing the concept of 'mathematical probabilities'.
For example, what's the probability that, if I pour water over a rock
in my kitchen, it will just wear away? Of course, it's zero.
But, water can, over billions of years, wear rock away quite easily.
What's the difference? Your misuse of 'mathematical probabilities' does
not include the concept of time.
Likewise, if I watch a spot of ground on the earth, what's the
probability that life will just appear in that spot? Why, mostly 0.
But over time, and lets try the 4.5 billion years the earth has been
around, life will evolve with 100 percent certanty.
And you know this; how? Ever heard of the statement,
by Louis Pasteur: "life comes only from pre-existing life".
There is no hard empirical evidence that even one
exception has ever been observed; even in the 4.5 billion
years of the earth's history.
There were no microscopes 3 billion years ago.
And that quote isn't science.
Nevertheless, it is still a fact. There is _no_ empirical evidence
that contradicts this statement by Pasteur. All attempts to do so
have ended in failure. The absence of a microscope is just an
excuse for failure. It changes nothing.
Lack of contrary evidence ISN'T PROOF.
"There is no evidence proving I'm not God. I, therefore, am God."
You need to learn logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
01 Oct 2005 10:56:48 PM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vlE%e.4070$sL3.3682@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:DBy%e.901$MM3.722@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rzu%e.1003$sL3.745@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:%ru%e.862$MM3.526@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:zAr%e.11897$uD2.9894@fe05.lga...
explorerthedog wrote:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in
the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together
by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
You're misusing the concept of 'mathematical probabilities'.
For example, what's the probability that, if I pour water over a rock
in my kitchen, it will just wear away? Of course, it's zero.
But, water can, over billions of years, wear rock away quite easily.
What's the difference? Your misuse of 'mathematical probabilities'
does not include the concept of time.
Likewise, if I watch a spot of ground on the earth, what's the
probability that life will just appear in that spot? Why, mostly 0.
But over time, and lets try the 4.5 billion years the earth has been
around, life will evolve with 100 percent certanty.
And you know this; how? Ever heard of the statement,
by Louis Pasteur: "life comes only from pre-existing life".
There is no hard empirical evidence that even one
exception has ever been observed; even in the 4.5 billion
years of the earth's history.
There were no microscopes 3 billion years ago.
And that quote isn't science.
Nevertheless, it is still a fact. There is _no_ empirical evidence
that contradicts this statement by Pasteur. All attempts to do so
have ended in failure. The absence of a microscope is just an
excuse for failure. It changes nothing.
Lack of contrary evidence ISN'T PROOF.
No, but it is an excuse for failure to provide proof. One should note
that it's the person who makes a positive claim bears the burden of
proof.
If one claims that life has risen from inanimate matter, it is his
responsibility to provide proof. Anyone can claim _anything_ no
matter how preposterous, insane or absurd the claim is where
proof is absent.
"There is no evidence proving I'm not God. I, therefore, am God."
You just made my point. It's your claim that you are God, therefore,
the burden of proof in upon your shoulders.
You need to learn logic.
You are using a twisted logic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
01 Oct 2005 05:48:54 PM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:oDx%e.892$MM3.674@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128043214.509562.310540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
I think that intelligent design must stand alone with injecting religion
into it. By doing so it removes the I.D. model from the realm of
science. It becomes a religious concept.
It ALREADY IS just a religious concept.
It has nothing to do with science, except to clothe it in scientific
language to get it into schools illegally.
The point is that the
Jewish man the designer is the Jewish God, to the Moslem the
designer is the Moslem God. to the Christian it's the Christian God
others would believe it is Buddha, etc. This is beyond science
to determine the identity of the designer. Nor is it necessary to
the validity of the ID model. Certainly it's possible to detect the
existence of design without naming any designer.
Still religion. Still NOT science.
Still belongs OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
Science frequently uses mathematical probabilities in order to arrive
at its conclusions. They are a standard part of scientific research.
You can be scientific without necessarily conducting experiments. If
you don't believe this, then search the Internet for
http://www.google.com/search?&q=science+mathematical+probabilities and
see what you get.
But first, before we do any computations, we need some background . . .
"Intelligent Design" is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of
science or religion. It is a broad view of the universe and everything
in it, with the fundamental belief that there was some sort of
intelligent entity which somehow guided and controlled the creation and
development of the entire universe, according to an Intelligent Design.
The Greek philosopher Plato clearly outlined what we now call
"Intelligent Design" in his dialogue,"Timaeus," where he refers to a
"creator," who exists outside of time and who created all of the
material universe, at the beginning of time according to a plan. (see
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/tmeus11.txt. Skip the
translator's lengthy introduction and go directly to the text of Plato,
beginning with the words "First then, in my judgment.") Plato, as you
remember, was a philosopher, not a religious leader. And Intelligent
Design is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of religion or of
science.
Yes, most religions do have a belief in some kind of Intelligent
Designer who created the universe at the beginning of time; but they
differ on many things beyond that point. The religion of Atheism,
however, denies that there is any sort of Intelligent Designer, because
that would clearly suggest a God, which Atheism does not accept.
Maybe this Intelligent Designer was the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "One
God;" and maybe not. Intelligent Design does not specify which, if any,
god(s) were involved; only that some sort of Intelligent Designer was
in control.
A believer in Intelligent Design would say, as I do, that all the
processes which Science tries to understand, and all the laws governing
the universe, were created by this Intelligent Designer. For what
purpose, if any? Who knows? Intelligent Design does not say. What does
the Intelligent Designer want from us, if anything? Who knows?
Intelligent Design does not say.
Science is only a means of understanding that which was created by
Intelligent Design. Science is not an end in itself. It is not the
responsibility of Intelligent Design to follow the methods of Science,
but the responsibility of Science to understand and explain that which
was created by Intelligent Design.
Now, back to the calculations of scientific probabilities . . .
In Probability, if an event is certain to occur, it has a probability
of 1. If it is certain not to occur, it has a probability of 0. If it
has a fifty-percent chance of occurring, it has a probability of .5. So
the chance of getting a "head" in any one coin toss is .5. To find the
probability of multiple events happening together, we multiply all of
the individual probabilities together. So the chance of tossing two
heads in a row is .5 times .5, or .25; and the chance of tossing five
heads in a row is .5 X .5 X.5 X.5 X .5, or .03125, or about three
percent.
Look now at the world, and see if it could possibly all have happened
by chance. Look first at the earth itself, with its perfect atmosphere
to sustain life; perfect temperature for life; perfect cycle of night
and day; perfect cycle of seasons; perfect soil for growing crops; fish
to eat in the rivers and oceans; animals to eat on the earth; perfect
amount of water for drinking, provided by an amazing water-supply
system, with built-in purification; beautiful flowers and other things
for our pleasure; trees for shade; breezes for refreshment; just the
right nutrients in the food we eat; natural remedies in the plants, to
cure our diseases;a perfect built-in clean-up system, using rain,
rivers, oceans, and clouds; and on and on and on, without end.
The odds that all of these things could come together at the same time
by chance is about one in a million zillion, whatever tiny amount that
might be. So even if we do not consider the staggering complexity of
biological life, it is statistically impossible that our earth simply
happened by chance, or by any imagined combination of pre-existing
natural processes.
Surely King David of Israel was right when he wrote two times in the
Bible, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms
14:1, Psalms 53:1 KJV)
Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Who created all things.
Rev. Bill McGinnis <><
bmcgin@patriot.net
This page is brought to you by LoveAllPeople.org,
God's One Law For Everyone: "Love All People As Yourself."
LoveAllPeople.org maintains hundreds of web pages and files for the
benefit of all people. All our original messages and web pages are
"free to copy, free to use, free to download." Most are in the Public
Domain.
LoveAllPeople.org - http://www.loveallpeople.org
SITE MAP - http://www.loveallpeople.org/chapellinks.html
ETHICS & HUMAN RELATIONS - POLITICS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS - CHRISTIAN -
AUTOMOTIVE - LEGAL SERVICES - GENERAL INTEREST - PUBLISHING &
CONSULTING - AFFILIATES
HTTP://WWW.LOVEALLPEOPLE.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
01 Oct 2005 11:04:50 PM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qnE%e.4096$sL3.3073@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:oDx%e.892$MM3.674@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128043214.509562.310540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
I think that intelligent design must stand alone with injecting religion
into it. By doing so it removes the I.D. model from the realm of
science. It becomes a religious concept.
It ALREADY IS just a religious concept.
It has nothing to do with science, except to clothe it in scientific
language to get it into schools illegally.
I gave my reason for maintaining that ID is _not_ religious.
All you have done is make accusations, declarations and
bald faced pronouncements. You haven't given one reason
justifying your statements.
The point is that the
Jewish man the designer is the Jewish God, to the Moslem the
designer is the Moslem God. to the Christian it's the Christian God
others would believe it is Buddha, etc. This is beyond science
to determine the identity of the designer. Nor is it necessary to
the validity of the ID model. Certainly it's possible to detect the
existence of design without naming any designer.
Still religion. Still NOT science.
Still belongs OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.
Why? What is your _reasoning_? Don't just parrot what you've
heard from others.
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
Science frequently uses mathematical probabilities in order to arrive
at its conclusions. They are a standard part of scientific research.
You can be scientific without necessarily conducting experiments. If
you don't believe this, then search the Internet for
http://www.google.com/search?&q=science+mathematical+probabilities and
see what you get.
But first, before we do any computations, we need some background . . .
"Intelligent Design" is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of
science or religion. It is a broad view of the universe and everything
in it, with the fundamental belief that there was some sort of
intelligent entity which somehow guided and controlled the creation and
development of the entire universe, according to an Intelligent Design.
The Greek philosopher Plato clearly outlined what we now call
"Intelligent Design" in his dialogue,"Timaeus," where he refers to a
"creator," who exists outside of time and who created all of the
material universe, at the beginning of time according to a plan. (see
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/tmeus11.txt. Skip the
translator's lengthy introduction and go directly to the text of Plato,
beginning with the words "First then, in my judgment.") Plato, as you
remember, was a philosopher, not a religious leader. And Intelligent
Design is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of religion or of
science.
Yes, most religions do have a belief in some kind of Intelligent
Designer who created the universe at the beginning of time; but they
differ on many things beyond that point. The religion of Atheism,
however, denies that there is any sort of Intelligent Designer, because
that would clearly suggest a God, which Atheism does not accept.
Maybe this Intelligent Designer was the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "One
God;" and maybe not. Intelligent Design does not specify which, if any,
god(s) were involved; only that some sort of Intelligent Designer was
in control.
A believer in Intelligent Design would say, as I do, that all the
processes which Science tries to understand, and all the laws governing
the universe, were created by this Intelligent Designer. For what
purpose, if any? Who knows? Intelligent Design does not say. What does
the Intelligent Designer want from us, if anything? Who knows?
Intelligent Design does not say.
Science is only a means of understanding that which was created by
Intelligent Design. Science is not an end in itself. It is not the
responsibility of Intelligent Design to follow the methods of Science,
but the responsibility of Science to understand and explain that which
was created by Intelligent Design.
Now, back to the calculations of scientific probabilities . . .
In Probability, if an event is certain to occur, it has a probability
of 1. If it is certain not to occur, it has a probability of 0. If it
has a fifty-percent chance of occurring, it has a probability of .5. So
the chance of getting a "head" in any one coin toss is .5. To find the
probability of multiple events happening together, we multiply all of
the individual probabilities together. So the chance of tossing two
heads in a row is .5 times .5, or .25; and the chance of tossing five
heads in a row is .5 X .5 X.5 X.5 X .5, or .03125, or about three
percent.
Look now at the world, and see if it could possibly all have happened
by chance. Look first at the earth itself, with its perfect atmosphere
to sustain life; perfect temperature for life; perfect cycle of night
and day; perfect cycle of seasons; perfect soil for growing crops; fish
to eat in the rivers and oceans; animals to eat on the earth; perfect
amount of water for drinking, provided by an amazing water-supply
system, with built-in purification; beautiful flowers and other things
for our pleasure; trees for shade; breezes for refreshment; just the
right nutrients in the food we eat; natural remedies in the plants, to
cure our diseases;a perfect built-in clean-up system, using rain,
rivers, oceans, and clouds; and on and on and on, without end.
The odds that all of these things could come together at the same time
by chance is about one in a million zillion, whatever tiny amount that
might be. So even if we do not consider the staggering complexity of
biological life, it is statistically impossible that our earth simply
happened by chance, or by any imagined combination of pre-existing
natural processes.
Surely King David of Israel was right when he wrote two times in the
Bible, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms
14:1, Psalms 53:1 KJV)
Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Who created all things.
Rev. Bill McGinnis <><
bmcgin@patriot.net
This page is brought to you by LoveAllPeople.org,
God's One Law For Everyone: "Love All People As Yourself."
LoveAllPeople.org maintains hundreds of web pages and files for the
benefit of all people. All our original messages and web pages are
"free to copy, free to use, free to download." Most are in the Public
Domain.
LoveAllPeople.org - http://www.loveallpeople.org
SITE MAP - http://www.loveallpeople.org/chapellinks.html
ETHICS & HUMAN RELATIONS - POLITICS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS - CHRISTIAN -
AUTOMOTIVE - LEGAL SERVICES - GENERAL INTEREST - PUBLISHING &
CONSULTING - AFFILIATES
HTTP://WWW.LOVEALLPEOPLE.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
01 Oct 2005 11:36:35 PM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hWI%e.14265$7l.8180@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qnE%e.4096$sL3.3073@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:oDx%e.892$MM3.674@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128043214.509562.310540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
I think that intelligent design must stand alone with injecting religion
into it. By doing so it removes the I.D. model from the realm of
science. It becomes a religious concept.
It ALREADY IS just a religious concept.
It has nothing to do with science, except to clothe it in scientific
language to get it into schools illegally.
I gave my reason for maintaining that ID is _not_ religious.
All you have done is make accusations, declarations and
bald faced pronouncements. You haven't given one reason
justifying your statements.
I don't have to. There are thousands, if not millions, of words already
written to back up what I've said.
I'm just repeating them.
If you think any original thought is being done in this thread, these
groups, or on Usenet, you are fucking insane.
The point is that the
Jewish man the designer is the Jewish God, to the Moslem the
designer is the Moslem God. to the Christian it's the Christian God
others would believe it is Buddha, etc. This is beyond science
to determine the identity of the designer. Nor is it necessary to
the validity of the ID model. Certainly it's possible to detect the
existence of design without naming any designer.
Still religion. Still NOT science.
Still belongs OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.
Why? What is your _reasoning_? Don't just parrot what you've
heard from others.
You are a silly twit if you think you're coming up with original thougths.
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
Science frequently uses mathematical probabilities in order to arrive
at its conclusions. They are a standard part of scientific research.
You can be scientific without necessarily conducting experiments. If
you don't believe this, then search the Internet for
http://www.google.com/search?&q=science+mathematical+probabilities and
see what you get.
But first, before we do any computations, we need some background . . .
"Intelligent Design" is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of
science or religion. It is a broad view of the universe and everything
in it, with the fundamental belief that there was some sort of
intelligent entity which somehow guided and controlled the creation and
development of the entire universe, according to an Intelligent Design.
The Greek philosopher Plato clearly outlined what we now call
"Intelligent Design" in his dialogue,"Timaeus," where he refers to a
"creator," who exists outside of time and who created all of the
material universe, at the beginning of time according to a plan. (see
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/tmeus11.txt. Skip the
translator's lengthy introduction and go directly to the text of Plato,
beginning with the words "First then, in my judgment.") Plato, as you
remember, was a philosopher, not a religious leader. And Intelligent
Design is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of religion or of
science.
Yes, most religions do have a belief in some kind of Intelligent
Designer who created the universe at the beginning of time; but they
differ on many things beyond that point. The religion of Atheism,
however, denies that there is any sort of Intelligent Designer, because
that would clearly suggest a God, which Atheism does not accept.
Maybe this Intelligent Designer was the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "One
God;" and maybe not. Intelligent Design does not specify which, if any,
god(s) were involved; only that some sort of Intelligent Designer was
in control.
A believer in Intelligent Design would say, as I do, that all the
processes which Science tries to understand, and all the laws governing
the universe, were created by this Intelligent Designer. For what
purpose, if any? Who knows? Intelligent Design does not say. What does
the Intelligent Designer want from us, if anything? Who knows?
Intelligent Design does not say.
Science is only a means of understanding that which was created by
Intelligent Design. Science is not an end in itself. It is not the
responsibility of Intelligent Design to follow the methods of Science,
but the responsibility of Science to understand and explain that which
was created by Intelligent Design.
Now, back to the calculations of scientific probabilities . . .
In Probability, if an event is certain to occur, it has a probability
of 1. If it is certain not to occur, it has a probability of 0. If it
has a fifty-percent chance of occurring, it has a probability of .5. So
the chance of getting a "head" in any one coin toss is .5. To find the
probability of multiple events happening together, we multiply all of
the individual probabilities together. So the chance of tossing two
heads in a row is .5 times .5, or .25; and the chance of tossing five
heads in a row is .5 X .5 X.5 X.5 X .5, or .03125, or about three
percent.
Look now at the world, and see if it could possibly all have happened
by chance. Look first at the earth itself, with its perfect atmosphere
to sustain life; perfect temperature for life; perfect cycle of night
and day; perfect cycle of seasons; perfect soil for growing crops; fish
to eat in the rivers and oceans; animals to eat on the earth; perfect
amount of water for drinking, provided by an amazing water-supply
system, with built-in purification; beautiful flowers and other things
for our pleasure; trees for shade; breezes for refreshment; just the
right nutrients in the food we eat; natural remedies in the plants, to
cure our diseases;a perfect built-in clean-up system, using rain,
rivers, oceans, and clouds; and on and on and on, without end.
The odds that all of these things could come together at the same time
by chance is about one in a million zillion, whatever tiny amount that
might be. So even if we do not consider the staggering complexity of
biological life, it is statistically impossible that our earth simply
happened by chance, or by any imagined combination of pre-existing
natural processes.
Surely King David of Israel was right when he wrote two times in the
Bible, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms
14:1, Psalms 53:1 KJV)
Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Who created all things.
Rev. Bill McGinnis <><
bmcgin@patriot.net
This page is brought to you by LoveAllPeople.org,
God's One Law For Everyone: "Love All People As Yourself."
LoveAllPeople.org maintains hundreds of web pages and files for the
benefit of all people. All our original messages and web pages are
"free to copy, free to use, free to download." Most are in the Public
Domain.
LoveAllPeople.org - http://www.loveallpeople.org
SITE MAP - http://www.loveallpeople.org/chapellinks.html
ETHICS & HUMAN RELATIONS - POLITICS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS - CHRISTIAN -
AUTOMOTIVE - LEGAL SERVICES - GENERAL INTEREST - PUBLISHING &
CONSULTING - AFFILIATES
HTTP://WWW.LOVEALLPEOPLE.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
02 Oct 2005 08:56:24 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ntJ%e.2393$rl1.26@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hWI%e.14265$7l.8180@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qnE%e.4096$sL3.3073@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:oDx%e.892$MM3.674@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128043214.509562.310540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
I think that intelligent design must stand alone with injecting
religion
into it. By doing so it removes the I.D. model from the realm of
science. It becomes a religious concept.
It ALREADY IS just a religious concept.
It has nothing to do with science, except to clothe it in scientific
language to get it into schools illegally.
I gave my reason for maintaining that ID is _not_ religious.
All you have done is make accusations, declarations and
bald faced pronouncements. You haven't given one reason
justifying your statements.
I don't have to. There are thousands, if not millions, of words already
written to back up what I've said.
Fundamdntal to everything you've said, is the idea that leading ID poeple
inject religion into the discussion. From all I have seen it's the critics
who inject God into the model for political reasons. That is to claim
unjustily the model violates the US constitution. And it does AFTER
they put their intrepretation upon it. However, that does no falsify
the ID model.
I'm just repeating them.
Yes, you are. My point exactly!
If you think any original thought is being done in this thread, these
groups, or on Usenet, you are fucking insane.
The point is that the
Jewish man the designer is the Jewish God, to the Moslem the
designer is the Moslem God. to the Christian it's the Christian God
others would believe it is Buddha, etc. This is beyond science
to determine the identity of the designer. Nor is it necessary to
the validity of the ID model. Certainly it's possible to detect the
existence of design without naming any designer.
Still religion. Still NOT science.
Still belongs OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.
Why? What is your _reasoning_? Don't just parrot what you've
heard from others.
You are a silly twit if you think you're coming up with original thougths.
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in
the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
Science frequently uses mathematical probabilities in order to arrive
at its conclusions. They are a standard part of scientific research.
You can be scientific without necessarily conducting experiments. If
you don't believe this, then search the Internet for
http://www.google.com/search?&q=science+mathematical+probabilities and
see what you get.
But first, before we do any computations, we need some background . .
.
"Intelligent Design" is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of
science or religion. It is a broad view of the universe and everything
in it, with the fundamental belief that there was some sort of
intelligent entity which somehow guided and controlled the creation
and
development of the entire universe, according to an Intelligent
Design.
The Greek philosopher Plato clearly outlined what we now call
"Intelligent Design" in his dialogue,"Timaeus," where he refers to a
"creator," who exists outside of time and who created all of the
material universe, at the beginning of time according to a plan. (see
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/tmeus11.txt. Skip the
translator's lengthy introduction and go directly to the text of
Plato,
beginning with the words "First then, in my judgment.") Plato, as you
remember, was a philosopher, not a religious leader. And Intelligent
Design is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of religion or of
science.
Yes, most religions do have a belief in some kind of Intelligent
Designer who created the universe at the beginning of time; but they
differ on many things beyond that point. The religion of Atheism,
however, denies that there is any sort of Intelligent Designer,
because
that would clearly suggest a God, which Atheism does not accept.
Maybe this Intelligent Designer was the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "One
God;" and maybe not. Intelligent Design does not specify which, if
any,
god(s) were involved; only that some sort of Intelligent Designer was
in control.
A believer in Intelligent Design would say, as I do, that all the
processes which Science tries to understand, and all the laws
governing
the universe, were created by this Intelligent Designer. For what
purpose, if any? Who knows? Intelligent Design does not say. What does
the Intelligent Designer want from us, if anything? Who knows?
Intelligent Design does not say.
Science is only a means of understanding that which was created by
Intelligent Design. Science is not an end in itself. It is not the
responsibility of Intelligent Design to follow the methods of Science,
but the responsibility of Science to understand and explain that which
was created by Intelligent Design.
Now, back to the calculations of scientific probabilities . . .
In Probability, if an event is certain to occur, it has a probability
of 1. If it is certain not to occur, it has a probability of 0. If it
has a fifty-percent chance of occurring, it has a probability of .5.
So
the chance of getting a "head" in any one coin toss is .5. To find the
probability of multiple events happening together, we multiply all of
the individual probabilities together. So the chance of tossing two
heads in a row is .5 times .5, or .25; and the chance of tossing five
heads in a row is .5 X .5 X.5 X.5 X .5, or .03125, or about three
percent.
Look now at the world, and see if it could possibly all have happened
by chance. Look first at the earth itself, with its perfect atmosphere
to sustain life; perfect temperature for life; perfect cycle of night
and day; perfect cycle of seasons; perfect soil for growing crops;
fish
to eat in the rivers and oceans; animals to eat on the earth; perfect
amount of water for drinking, provided by an amazing water-supply
system, with built-in purification; beautiful flowers and other things
for our pleasure; trees for shade; breezes for refreshment; just the
right nutrients in the food we eat; natural remedies in the plants, to
cure our diseases;a perfect built-in clean-up system, using rain,
rivers, oceans, and clouds; and on and on and on, without end.
The odds that all of these things could come together at the same time
by chance is about one in a million zillion, whatever tiny amount that
might be. So even if we do not consider the staggering complexity of
biological life, it is statistically impossible that our earth simply
happened by chance, or by any imagined combination of pre-existing
natural processes.
Surely King David of Israel was right when he wrote two times in the
Bible, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms
14:1, Psalms 53:1 KJV)
Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Who created all things.
Rev. Bill McGinnis <><
bmcgin@patriot.net
This page is brought to you by LoveAllPeople.org,
God's One Law For Everyone: "Love All People As Yourself."
LoveAllPeople.org maintains hundreds of web pages and files for the
benefit of all people. All our original messages and web pages are
"free to copy, free to use, free to download." Most are in the Public
Domain.
LoveAllPeople.org - http://www.loveallpeople.org
SITE MAP - http://www.loveallpeople.org/chapellinks.html
ETHICS & HUMAN RELATIONS - POLITICS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS - CHRISTIAN -
AUTOMOTIVE - LEGAL SERVICES - GENERAL INTEREST - PUBLISHING &
CONSULTING - AFFILIATES
HTTP://WWW.LOVEALLPEOPLE.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
02 Oct 2005 06:16:09 PM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:iCR%e.4278$ff7.807@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ntJ%e.2393$rl1.26@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hWI%e.14265$7l.8180@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qnE%e.4096$sL3.3073@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:oDx%e.892$MM3.674@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128043214.509562.310540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
I think that intelligent design must stand alone with injecting
religion
into it. By doing so it removes the I.D. model from the realm of
science. It becomes a religious concept.
It ALREADY IS just a religious concept.
It has nothing to do with science, except to clothe it in scientific
language to get it into schools illegally.
I gave my reason for maintaining that ID is _not_ religious.
All you have done is make accusations, declarations and
bald faced pronouncements. You haven't given one reason
justifying your statements.
I don't have to. There are thousands, if not millions, of words already
written to back up what I've said.
Fundamdntal to everything you've said, is the idea that leading ID poeple
inject religion into the discussion. From all I have seen it's the critics
who inject God into the model for political reasons. That is to claim
unjustily the model violates the US constitution. And it does AFTER
they put their intrepretation upon it. However, that does no falsify
the ID model.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
Intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and
intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Phillip E.
Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language
in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic
creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the
Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson emphasizes "the first
thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and
that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact...
only then can "biblical issues" be discussed."[14] Johnson explicitly calls
for ID proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid
having ID identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian
evangelical message."[15] Though not all ID proponents are motivated by
religious fervor, the majority of the principal ID advocates (including
Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are
Christians and have stated that in their view the designer of life is
clearly God. The preponderance of leading ID proponents are evangelical
Protestants.
I'm just repeating them.
Yes, you are. My point exactly!
If you think any original thought is being done in this thread, these
groups, or on Usenet, you are fucking insane.
The point is that the
Jewish man the designer is the Jewish God, to the Moslem the
designer is the Moslem God. to the Christian it's the Christian God
others would believe it is Buddha, etc. This is beyond science
to determine the identity of the designer. Nor is it necessary to
the validity of the ID model. Certainly it's possible to detect the
existence of design without naming any designer.
Still religion. Still NOT science.
Still belongs OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.
Why? What is your _reasoning_? Don't just parrot what you've
heard from others.
You are a silly twit if you think you're coming up with original
thougths.
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in
the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together
by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
Science frequently uses mathematical probabilities in order to arrive
at its conclusions. They are a standard part of scientific research.
You can be scientific without necessarily conducting experiments. If
you don't believe this, then search the Internet for
http://www.google.com/search?&q=science+mathematical+probabilities
and
see what you get.
But first, before we do any computations, we need some background . .
.
"Intelligent Design" is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of
science or religion. It is a broad view of the universe and
everything
in it, with the fundamental belief that there was some sort of
intelligent entity which somehow guided and controlled the creation
and
development of the entire universe, according to an Intelligent
Design.
The Greek philosopher Plato clearly outlined what we now call
"Intelligent Design" in his dialogue,"Timaeus," where he refers to a
"creator," who exists outside of time and who created all of the
material universe, at the beginning of time according to a plan. (see
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/tmeus11.txt. Skip the
translator's lengthy introduction and go directly to the text of
Plato,
beginning with the words "First then, in my judgment.") Plato, as you
remember, was a philosopher, not a religious leader. And Intelligent
Design is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of religion or of
science.
Yes, most religions do have a belief in some kind of Intelligent
Designer who created the universe at the beginning of time; but they
differ on many things beyond that point. The religion of Atheism,
however, denies that there is any sort of Intelligent Designer,
because
that would clearly suggest a God, which Atheism does not accept.
Maybe this Intelligent Designer was the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "One
God;" and maybe not. Intelligent Design does not specify which, if
any,
god(s) were involved; only that some sort of Intelligent Designer was
in control.
A believer in Intelligent Design would say, as I do, that all the
processes which Science tries to understand, and all the laws
governing
the universe, were created by this Intelligent Designer. For what
purpose, if any? Who knows? Intelligent Design does not say. What
does
the Intelligent Designer want from us, if anything? Who knows?
Intelligent Design does not say.
Science is only a means of understanding that which was created by
Intelligent Design. Science is not an end in itself. It is not the
responsibility of Intelligent Design to follow the methods of
Science,
but the responsibility of Science to understand and explain that
which
was created by Intelligent Design.
Now, back to the calculations of scientific probabilities . . .
In Probability, if an event is certain to occur, it has a probability
of 1. If it is certain not to occur, it has a probability of 0. If it
has a fifty-percent chance of occurring, it has a probability of .5.
So
the chance of getting a "head" in any one coin toss is .5. To find
the
probability of multiple events happening together, we multiply all of
the individual probabilities together. So the chance of tossing two
heads in a row is .5 times .5, or .25; and the chance of tossing five
heads in a row is .5 X .5 X.5 X.5 X .5, or .03125, or about three
percent.
Look now at the world, and see if it could possibly all have happened
by chance. Look first at the earth itself, with its perfect
atmosphere
to sustain life; perfect temperature for life; perfect cycle of night
and day; perfect cycle of seasons; perfect soil for growing crops;
fish
to eat in the rivers and oceans; animals to eat on the earth; perfect
amount of water for drinking, provided by an amazing water-supply
system, with built-in purification; beautiful flowers and other
things
for our pleasure; trees for shade; breezes for refreshment; just the
right nutrients in the food we eat; natural remedies in the plants,
to
cure our diseases;a perfect built-in clean-up system, using rain,
rivers, oceans, and clouds; and on and on and on, without end.
The odds that all of these things could come together at the same
time
by chance is about one in a million zillion, whatever tiny amount
that
might be. So even if we do not consider the staggering complexity of
biological life, it is statistically impossible that our earth simply
happened by chance, or by any imagined combination of pre-existing
natural processes.
Surely King David of Israel was right when he wrote two times in the
Bible, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms
14:1, Psalms 53:1 KJV)
Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Who created all things.
Rev. Bill McGinnis <><
bmcgin@patriot.net
This page is brought to you by LoveAllPeople.org,
God's One Law For Everyone: "Love All People As Yourself."
LoveAllPeople.org maintains hundreds of web pages and files for the
benefit of all people. All our original messages and web pages are
"free to copy, free to use, free to download." Most are in the Public
Domain.
LoveAllPeople.org - http://www.loveallpeople.org
SITE MAP - http://www.loveallpeople.org/chapellinks.html
ETHICS & HUMAN RELATIONS - POLITICS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS - CHRISTIAN -
AUTOMOTIVE - LEGAL SERVICES - GENERAL INTEREST - PUBLISHING &
CONSULTING - AFFILIATES
HTTP://WWW.LOVEALLPEOPLE.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
02 Oct 2005 11:45:50 PM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZSZ%e.8177$oO2.4242@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:iCR%e.4278$ff7.807@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ntJ%e.2393$rl1.26@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hWI%e.14265$7l.8180@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qnE%e.4096$sL3.3073@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:oDx%e.892$MM3.674@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"explorerthedog" <exp1943@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128043214.509562.310540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW.
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
I think that intelligent design must stand alone with injecting
religion
into it. By doing so it removes the I.D. model from the realm of
science. It becomes a religious concept.
It ALREADY IS just a religious concept.
It has nothing to do with science, except to clothe it in scientific
language to get it into schools illegally.
I gave my reason for maintaining that ID is _not_ religious.
All you have done is make accusations, declarations and
bald faced pronouncements. You haven't given one reason
justifying your statements.
I don't have to. There are thousands, if not millions, of words already
written to back up what I've said.
Fundamdntal to everything you've said, is the idea that leading ID poeple
inject religion into the discussion. From all I have seen it's the
critics
who inject God into the model for political reasons. That is to claim
unjustily the model violates the US constitution. And it does AFTER
they put their intrepretation upon it. However, that does no falsify
the ID model.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
Intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and
intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Phillip E.
Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular
language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of
theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately
reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson
emphasizes "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of
the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice
from scientific fact... only then can "biblical issues" be discussed."[14]
Johnson explicitly calls for ID proponents to obfuscate their religious
motivations so as to avoid having ID identified "as just another way of
packaging the Christian evangelical message."[15] Though not all ID
proponents are motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the
principal ID advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan
Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in their
view the designer of life is clearly God. The preponderance of leading ID
proponents are evangelical Protestants.
Thanks for the reference. I read this first screen in it's entirety.
Evidently
you are right some of these people do advocate using I.D. as means to
get God back into the class room.
I think they are badly wrong if this is their motivation. That may be
the motivation of some but not all. Behe is a Catholic and the
Catholic schools are not bound by supreme court decisions concerning
God in their schools. I know little or nothing about the others mentioned
in the article. But I also noted that the writer of the article in Wikipedia
showed his bias against I.D..
I'm just repeating them.
Yes, you are. My point exactly!
If you think any original thought is being done in this thread, these
groups, or on Usenet, you are fucking insane.
The point is that the
Jewish man the designer is the Jewish God, to the Moslem the
designer is the Moslem God. to the Christian it's the Christian God
others would believe it is Buddha, etc. This is beyond science
to determine the identity of the designer. Nor is it necessary to
the validity of the ID model. Certainly it's possible to detect the
existence of design without naming any designer.
Still religion. Still NOT science.
Still belongs OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.
Why? What is your _reasoning_? Don't just parrot what you've
heard from others.
You are a silly twit if you think you're coming up with original
thougths.
HTML page at http://www.loveallpeople.org/intelligentdesign1.html
We can compute the mathematical probabilities of combined events in
the
real world, and see if they reasonably could have happened together
by
chance. If so, then no Intelligent Design is indicated. If not, then
Intelligent Design is indicated.
Science frequently uses mathematical probabilities in order to
arrive
at its conclusions. They are a standard part of scientific research.
You can be scientific without necessarily conducting experiments. If
you don't believe this, then search the Internet for
http://www.google.com/search?&q=science+mathematical+probabilities
and
see what you get.
But first, before we do any computations, we need some background .
. .
"Intelligent Design" is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of
science or religion. It is a broad view of the universe and
everything
in it, with the fundamental belief that there was some sort of
intelligent entity which somehow guided and controlled the creation
and
development of the entire universe, according to an Intelligent
Design.
The Greek philosopher Plato clearly outlined what we now call
"Intelligent Design" in his dialogue,"Timaeus," where he refers to a
"creator," who exists outside of time and who created all of the
material universe, at the beginning of time according to a plan.
(see
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/tmeus11.txt. Skip the
translator's lengthy introduction and go directly to the text of
Plato,
beginning with the words "First then, in my judgment.") Plato, as
you
remember, was a philosopher, not a religious leader. And Intelligent
Design is primarily a concept of philosophy, not of religion or of
science.
Yes, most religions do have a belief in some kind of Intelligent
Designer who created the universe at the beginning of time; but they
differ on many things beyond that point. The religion of Atheism,
however, denies that there is any sort of Intelligent Designer,
because
that would clearly suggest a God, which Atheism does not accept.
Maybe this Intelligent Designer was the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "One
God;" and maybe not. Intelligent Design does not specify which, if
any,
god(s) were involved; only that some sort of Intelligent Designer
was
in control.
A believer in Intelligent Design would say, as I do, that all the
processes which Science tries to understand, and all the laws
governing
the universe, were created by this Intelligent Designer. For what
purpose, if any? Who knows? Intelligent Design does not say. What
does
the Intelligent Designer want from us, if anything? Who knows?
Intelligent Design does not say.
Science is only a means of understanding that which was created by
Intelligent Design. Science is not an end in itself. It is not the
responsibility of Intelligent Design to follow the methods of
Science,
but the responsibility of Science to understand and explain that
which
was created by Intelligent Design.
Now, back to the calculations of scientific probabilities . . .
In Probability, if an event is certain to occur, it has a
probability
of 1. If it is certain not to occur, it has a probability of 0. If
it
has a fifty-percent chance of occurring, it has a probability of .5.
So
the chance of getting a "head" in any one coin toss is .5. To find
the
probability of multiple events happening together, we multiply all
of
the individual probabilities together. So the chance of tossing two
heads in a row is .5 times .5, or .25; and the chance of tossing
five
heads in a row is .5 X .5 X.5 X.5 X .5, or .03125, or about three
percent.
Look now at the world, and see if it could possibly all have
happened
by chance. Look first at the earth itself, with its perfect
atmosphere
to sustain life; perfect temperature for life; perfect cycle of
night
and day; perfect cycle of seasons; perfect soil for growing crops;
fish
to eat in the rivers and oceans; animals to eat on the earth;
perfect
amount of water for drinking, provided by an amazing water-supply
system, with built-in purification; beautiful flowers and other
things
for our pleasure; trees for shade; breezes for refreshment; just the
right nutrients in the food we eat; natural remedies in the plants,
to
cure our diseases;a perfect built-in clean-up system, using rain,
rivers, oceans, and clouds; and on and on and on, without end.
The odds that all of these things could come together at the same
time
by chance is about one in a million zillion, whatever tiny amount
that
might be. So even if we do not consider the staggering complexity of
biological life, it is statistically impossible that our earth
simply
happened by chance, or by any imagined combination of pre-existing
natural processes.
Surely King David of Israel was right when he wrote two times in the
Bible, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms
14:1, Psalms 53:1 KJV)
Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Who created all things.
Rev. Bill McGinnis <><
bmcgin@patriot.net
This page is brought to you by LoveAllPeople.org,
God's One Law For Everyone: "Love All People As Yourself."
LoveAllPeople.org maintains hundreds of web pages and files for the
benefit of all people. All our original messages and web pages are
"free to copy, free to use, free to download." Most are in the
Public
Domain.
LoveAllPeople.org - http://www.loveallpeople.org
SITE MAP - http://www.loveallpeople.org/chapellinks.html
ETHICS & HUMAN RELATIONS - POLITICS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS - CHRISTIAN -
AUTOMOTIVE - LEGAL SERVICES - GENERAL INTEREST - PUBLISHING &
CONSULTING - AFFILIATES
HTTP://WWW.LOVEALLPEOPLE.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 12:58:06 AM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Evidently
you are right some of these people do advocate using I.D. as means to
get God back into the class room.
I think they are badly wrong if this is their motivation. That may be
the motivation of some but not all.
Let's be clear on this - nobody objects to introducing ID in the
classroom. What's offensive is that ID proponents demand that it be
included in the science curriculum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 01:14:39 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dbrv@mhrt.inv> wrote in message
news:ilh1k19ecrla8ftrndtp2loa1lgv87utsh@4ax.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Evidently
you are right some of these people do advocate using I.D. as means to
get God back into the class room.
I think they are badly wrong if this is their motivation. That may be
the motivation of some but not all.
Let's be clear on this - nobody objects to introducing ID in the
classroom. What's offensive is that ID proponents demand that it be
included in the science curriculum.
It's the teaching of it as a valid theory in any class.
Just like religion, which can be taught, but only when it's treated as a
religion, not as fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 01:26:13 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Evidently
you are right some of these people do advocate using I.D. as means to
get God back into the class room.
I think they are badly wrong if this is their motivation. That may be
the motivation of some but not all.
Let's be clear on this - nobody objects to introducing ID in the
classroom. What's offensive is that ID proponents demand that it be
included in the science curriculum.
It's the teaching of it as a valid theory in any class.
I think that may be going too far. A theory is not necessarily
scientific - the dictionary includes "an idea of or belief about
something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." I wouldn't
have a problem referring to ID as conjecture or speculation. In fact,
conjecture (guesswork) is probably perfect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 08:44:19 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dbrv@mhrt.inv> wrote in message
news:oej1k15podqlalct962ru1b2e8688qq30a@4ax.com...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Evidently
you are right some of these people do advocate using I.D. as means to
get God back into the class room.
I think they are badly wrong if this is their motivation. That may be
the motivation of some but not all.
Let's be clear on this - nobody objects to introducing ID in the
classroom. What's offensive is that ID proponents demand that it be
included in the science curriculum.
It's the teaching of it as a valid theory in any class.
I think that may be going too far. A theory is not necessarily
scientific - the dictionary includes "an idea of or belief about
something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." I wouldn't
have a problem referring to ID as conjecture or speculation. In fact,
conjecture (guesswork) is probably perfect.
I think ID could become a science with financing, research, and
field study. I think ID is a science in embro.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 06:12:06 PM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_wa0f.5797$ff7.1281@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Steve" <dbrv@mhrt.inv> wrote in message
news:oej1k15podqlalct962ru1b2e8688qq30a@4ax.com...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Evidently
you are right some of these people do advocate using I.D. as means to
get God back into the class room.
I think they are badly wrong if this is their motivation. That may be
the motivation of some but not all.
Let's be clear on this - nobody objects to introducing ID in the
classroom. What's offensive is that ID proponents demand that it be
included in the science curriculum.
It's the teaching of it as a valid theory in any class.
I think that may be going too far. A theory is not necessarily
scientific - the dictionary includes "an idea of or belief about
something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." I wouldn't
have a problem referring to ID as conjecture or speculation. In fact,
conjecture (guesswork) is probably perfect.
I think ID could become a science with financing, research, and
field study. I think ID is a science in embro.
If it becomes a science, then it can be taught.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 10:35:44 AM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I think that may be going too far. A theory is not necessarily
scientific - the dictionary includes "an idea of or belief about
something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." I wouldn't
have a problem referring to ID as conjecture or speculation. In fact,
conjecture (guesswork) is probably perfect.
I think ID could become a science with financing, research, and
field study. I think ID is a science in embro.
That's a bit disingenuous. The concept has been around for years, and
so-called think tanks like the Discovery Institute are well funded.
Yet there has not been a single testable hypothesis ever put forward
by ID proponents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 02:32:45 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <dbrv@mhrt.inv> wrote in message
news:4oj2k11pgum170nfkud6d63c512bm98khm@4ax.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I think that may be going too far. A theory is not necessarily
scientific - the dictionary includes "an idea of or belief about
something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." I wouldn't
have a problem referring to ID as conjecture or speculation. In fact,
conjecture (guesswork) is probably perfect.
I think ID could become a science with financing, research, and
field study. I think ID is a science in embro.
That's a bit disingenuous. The concept has been around for years, and
so-called think tanks like the Discovery Institute are well funded.
Consider the amount of funds given to evolutionism. The funding
for Discovery Institute isn't even close.
Yet there has not been a single testable hypothesis ever put forward
by ID proponents.
How do you know this? Do you just accept the pronouncements
of authority figures without doing any research or checking on your
own? What reading, if any, have you done related to the subject of
Intelligent Design from primary ID sources or are you just parroting
critics sources?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 03:47:07 PM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Yet there has not been a single testable hypothesis ever put forward
by ID proponents.
How do you know this? Do you just accept the pronouncements
of authority figures without doing any research or checking on your
own? What reading, if any, have you done related to the subject of
Intelligent Design from primary ID sources or are you just parroting
critics sources?
Much easier to answer by simply posting the testable hypothesis that
you so fervently believe is out there.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 08:05:07 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dbrv@mhrt.inv> wrote in message
news:oej1k15podqlalct962ru1b2e8688qq30a@4ax.com...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Evidently
you are right some of these people do advocate using I.D. as means to
get God back into the class room.
I think they are badly wrong if this is their motivation. That may be
the motivation of some but not all.
Let's be clear on this - nobody objects to introducing ID in the
classroom. What's offensive is that ID proponents demand that it be
included in the science curriculum.
It's the teaching of it as a valid theory in any class.
I think that may be going too far. A theory is not necessarily
scientific - the dictionary includes "an idea of or belief about
something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." I wouldn't
have a problem referring to ID as conjecture or speculation. In fact,
conjecture (guesswork) is probably perfect.
It's RELIGION. It has no place in public schools.
It requires the belief in a SUPERNATURAL BEING who created life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 10:31:32 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's the teaching of it as a valid theory in any class.
I think that may be going too far. A theory is not necessarily
scientific - the dictionary includes "an idea of or belief about
something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." I wouldn't
have a problem referring to ID as conjecture or speculation. In fact,
conjecture (guesswork) is probably perfect.
It's RELIGION. It has no place in public schools.
It requires the belief in a SUPERNATURAL BEING who created life.
Ok, but who says religion can't be studied in public schools?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 10:16:04 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <dbrv@mhrt.inv> wrote in message
news:bgj2k11avt6qmf4aiq3n94m5aiggilrj1q@4ax.com...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's the teaching of it as a valid theory in any class.
I think that may be going too far. A theory is not necessarily
scientific - the dictionary includes "an idea of or belief about
something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." I wouldn't
have a problem referring to ID as conjecture or speculation. In fact,
conjecture (guesswork) is probably perfect.
It's RELIGION. It has no place in public schools.
It requires the belief in a SUPERNATURAL BEING who created life.
Ok, but who says religion can't be studied in public schools?
The point is not about religion being taught in public schools - the point
is about teaching extremist, fanatical, fundamentalist and corrupted
"biblical christianity" taught in schools.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 02:14:49 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <dbrv@mhrt.inv> wrote in message
news:bgj2k11avt6qmf4aiq3n94m5aiggilrj1q@4ax.com...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's the teaching of it as a valid theory in any class.
I think that may be going too far. A theory is not necessarily
scientific - the dictionary includes "an idea of or belief about
something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." I wouldn't
have a problem referring to ID as conjecture or speculation. In fact,
conjecture (guesswork) is probably perfect.
It's RELIGION. It has no place in public schools.
It requires the belief in a SUPERNATURAL BEING who created life.
Ok, but who says religion can't be studied in public schools?
The only way one can be absolutily certain that the universe and life was
not the consequence of intelligent design, is to be absolutely certain that
there no intelligent designer (God) ever existed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 03:41:53 PM |
|
|
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The only way one can be absolutily certain that the universe and life was
not the consequence of intelligent design, is to be absolutely certain that
there no intelligent designer (God) ever existed.
Well, ok, so?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct 2005 09:06:17 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <dbrv@mhrt.inv> wrote in message
news:bi43k19b6qadr96sd0u2je6f8fg65ibevf@4ax.com...
"Ron Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The only way one can be absolutily certain that the universe and life was
not the consequence of intelligent design, is to be absolutely certain
that
there no intelligent designer (God) ever existed.
Well, ok, so?
So you're admitting that without proof, which is not about science,
evolution is not a fact. This has been recognized by a couple
scientist, and have back tracked somewhat. They say that, given
the evidence, evolution is as close, to being a fact as science can
truthfully get. So, this is an acknowledgement that evolution is
not a fact, yet they desperately want to believe it is, so they
engage in prevarication. They try to have their cake and eat it
too.
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY: HERE'S HOW |
03 Oct | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
