Is ID belief a deal-killer in a politician? - Page 2

Sword_Of_Truth · 9th May 2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

How is "I believe in evolution" proof that Obama believes in ID?

Saying "I'm a christian" is proof that he believes in the existence of an "Intelligent Designer".

As I understand ID "theory" (note the quotation marks), it is evolved from creationism, but so watered down as to become almost completely meaningless. Effectively it means "Whatever happened, God did it". because it's so watered down, it is no longer tied to Young Earth Creationism. You can basically append "God did it" to the end of almost anything. It's not even necessarily attached to any concept of God anymore, it could even mean that life on earth was built by extra-terrestrials.

I'm actually on your side on this. Like President Obama, I too believe in an Intelligent Designer, but I do not believe that ID "theory" belongs in science classrooms. Science is about formulating hypotheses and testing them. The big problem (among many) for ID "theory" is that it doesn't generate testable predictions. It's not science.

RandFan · 9th May 2012, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Saying "I'm a christian" is proof that he believes in the existence of an "Intelligent Designer".

As I understand ID "theory" (note the quotation marks), it is evolved from creationism, but so watered down as to become almost completely meaningless. Effectively it means "Whatever happened, God did it". because it's so watered down, it is no longer tied to Young Earth Creationism. You can basically append "God did it" to the end of almost anything. It's not even necessarily attached to any concept of God anymore, it could even mean that life on earth was built by extra-terrestrials.

I'm actually on your side on this. Like President Obama, I too believe in an Intelligent Designer, but I do not believe that ID "theory" belongs in science classrooms. Science is about formulating hypotheses and testing them. The big problem (among many) for ID "theory" is that it doesn't generate testable predictions. It's not science.

Okay, I actually understand your explanation. However, while some people do believe that concept when they are talking about ID, that's not the official version. ID sets up a dichotomy of evolution vs ID. ID is supposed to disprove evolution as the life forms are irreducibly complex ala William Paley.

Quote:

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent designer with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

When most people use the term "ID" they are talking about that.

angrysoba · 9th May 2012, 09:25 PM

I'm pretty sure that no politician in Britain would dare say they were believers in intelligent design. Not publically anyway apart from George Galloway, possibly, in his relentless attempts to pander to the radical fringe of Islam.

I think a politician who says they believe in ID is either a liar or a fool. Probably not worth voting for.

Multivac · 10th May 2012, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by Lamuella

oh, would that it were so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S...(UK_politician)

Hadn't heard of him. He also thinks homeopathy works.

Sadder, but wiser.

Segnosaur · 10th May 2012, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Saying "I'm a christian" is proof that he believes in the existence of an "Intelligent Designer".

You used the phrase "Intelligent Designer"... do you equate that to a belief in "Intelligent Design"?

I do believe its possible for someone to be both a Christian and a full fledged believer in evolution (i.e. no "intelligent design" anywhere.) They believe that god set up the conditions at the start of creation, and let things progress from there.

Quote:

As I understand ID "theory" (note the quotation marks), it is evolved from creationism, but so watered down as to become almost completely meaningless. Effectively it means "Whatever happened, God did it". because it's so watered down, it is no longer tied to Young Earth Creationism. You can basically append "God did it" to the end of almost anything. It's not even necessarily attached to any concept of God anymore, it could even mean that life on earth was built by extra-terrestrials.

I wouldn't say its completely meaningless.

I think the purpose of "Intelligent design" is to fill in the perceived gaps... e.g. if we know the general trend of evolution from fossils but not the point where our ancestors became bipedal, they invoke the "goddidit" and argue that there was some influence there. Don't know how the flagellum evolved? "goddidit". i.e. god is tinkering at specific points in our prehistory.

This is different than a god who set up everything at the beginning and just let things progress without tinkering at specific points in time.

wheunis · 10th May 2012, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You used the phrase "Intelligent Designer"... do you equate that to a belief in "Intelligent Design"?

Yes.
Why would Intelligent Design be possible without an Intelligent Designer?
Or was it just some hillbilly gluing random stuff together that he found laying around?

Segnosaur · 10th May 2012, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by wheunis

Quote:

You used the phrase "Intelligent Designer"... do you equate that to a belief in "Intelligent Design"?

Yes.
Why would Intelligent Design be possible without an Intelligent Designer?
Or was it just some hillbilly gluing random stuff together that he found laying around?

But as I pointed out, the concept of "intelligent design" might involve a certain amount of evolution, but with god "tinkering" now and again, whereas an "intelligent designer" might have been one that created everything correctly at the beginning, without the need for tinkering once things got started.

So, all intelligent design would require an intelligent designer, but not all intelligent designers would work through intelligent design.

wheunis · 10th May 2012, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

So, all intelligent design would require an intelligent designer, but not all intelligent designers would work through intelligent design.

So in the second half, you're saying that an Intelligent Designer would slap random **** together randomly, hold his thumbs and close his eyes, and if it doesn't work out - "yeah well I tried!"

OR:

Is it that you think the designer that manufactured the most perfect machine (universe) did not do it by intelligent design, but just banging balls together until something came of it?

I am not certain I understand how you connect the part where an Intelligent Designer does not design by intelligence.

Babbylonian · 10th May 2012, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by wheunis

So in the second half, you're saying that an Intelligent Designer would slap random **** together randomly, hold his thumbs and close his eyes, and if it doesn't work out - "yeah well I tried!"

OR:

Is it that you think the designer that manufactured the most perfect machine (universe) did not do it by intelligent design, but just banging balls together until something came of it?

I am not certain I understand how you connect the part where an Intelligent Designer does not design by intelligence.

You're conflating the generic combination of the words "intelligent" and "design" with the specific ideology of "intelligent design."

JeanFromBNA · 10th May 2012, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I do believe its possible for someone to be both a Christian and a full fledged believer in evolution (i.e. no "intelligent design" anywhere.) They believe that god set up the conditions at the start of creation, and let things progress from there.
.

This is what most of the lapsed or weakly religious that I encounter believe. You have to account for those that are afraid not to believe in god, and those politicians that find it politically expedient to believe in god.

Segnosaur · 10th May 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by wheunis

Quote:

So, all intelligent design would require an intelligent designer, but not all intelligent designers would work through intelligent design

So in the second half, you're saying that an Intelligent Designer would slap random **** together randomly, hold his thumbs and close his eyes, and if it doesn't work out - "yeah well I tried!"
OR:
Is it that you think the designer that manufactured the most perfect machine (universe) did not do it by intelligent design, but just banging balls together until something came of it?

I'm thinking more of a super-intelligent god who is able to predict how things will end up depending on how he sets things up at the very beginning... i.e. "I will arrange the initial energy of the big bang to result in a planet where certain amino acids will be created that will lead to bacteria, etc..."

This is opposed to a god who first creates earth and life, then says "OK, I have life, now I'll tinker with it to give bacteria flagellum." Then after a few million years says "OK, now I'll tinker with humans to give them a big brain".

Segnosaur · 10th May 2012, 08:58 AM

[quote=JeanFromBNA;8273218]
[quote]I do believe its possible for someone to be both a Christian and a full fledged believer in evolution (i.e. no "intelligent design" anywhere.) They believe that god set up the conditions at the start of creation, and let things progress from there.

Quote:

This is what most of the lapsed or weakly religious that I encounter believe. You have to account for those that are afraid not to believe in god, and those politicians that find it politically expedient to believe in god.

I think it might also be the position of the Catholic church, which seems to have rejected "intelligent design".

Sword_Of_Truth · 10th May 2012, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

ID is supposed to disprove evolution as the life forms are irreducibly complex ala William Paley.

Quote:

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent designer with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

That's going beyond proposing the existence of an Intelligent Designer. By adding the part where lifeforms came into being in their current forms instantaneously, he's just pushing creationism under a different name.

Sword_Of_Truth · 10th May 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

But as I pointed out, the concept of "intelligent design" might involve a certain amount of evolution, but with god "tinkering" now and again, whereas an "intelligent designer" might have been one that created everything correctly at the beginning, without the need for tinkering once things got started.

Except that's not what happened.

Our system that had everything set up at the beginning has gone off the rails several times and has had numerous resets, like the Chixulub Asteroid impact, the Siberian Flood Basalt event and various smaller extinctions.

Assuming that Homo Sapiens in its current form was the desired end result of our Hypothetical Intelligent designer, it is probable that he intervened at numerous points in the process. And not just in the form of a massive asteroid when he noticed that Earth was cranking out massive reptilians when he wanted mid-sized mammalian forms.

But... and this is where Science!™ comes in... we have no way of discerning between an asteroid hurled by God and one that smashed into us on its own. Nor can we tell between a DNA molecule nudged into a new configuration by an errant cosmic ray and one manipulated by the finger of God.

At best, you can "Teach the Controversy" in philosophy or poli-sci classes, but it's just not science.

RandFan · 10th May 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

That's going beyond proposing the existence of an Intelligent Designer. By adding the part where lifeforms came into being in their current forms instantaneously, he's just pushing creationism under a different name.

THAT'S ID. The term Intelligent Design exists for a very specific reason. To counter evolution. At the time of the Scopes trial creationists outlawed evolution. Eventually the courts ruled that unconstitutional so the creationists tried to come up with something that could compete with evolution scientifically. They called that "Creation Science". But the courts struck that down also. So then they got rid of the "creation" altogether and came up with an "intelligent designer". BTW: This is a matter of legal fact documented in the PBS documentary Judgement Day, Intelligent Design on Trial. Plaintiffs were able to demonstrate conclusively that Intelligent Design was simply old wine into new bottles. It's really fascinating. BTW: The judge who decided the case is a theist who believes in intelligent design (the generic version of ID that you previously defined).

So, while I agree with your generic definition it's important to note that for many ID does not mean what you think it means. It means what those who coined it, coined it to mean. It's an alternative to evolution to account for the origins of man.

For a more in-depth explanation of the evolution of ID (pun intended) by Eugenie Scott (consultant for the Dover Pplaintiffs) you can see here.

fishbob · 10th May 2012, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

. . . . . Assuming that Homo Sapiens in its current form was the desired end result of our Hypothetical Intelligent designer. . . . . .

Your assumption is hanging waaaaay out there.
There is no basis for this assumption - no evidence, no logic, no anything.

Crossbow · 11th May 2012, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by phildonnia

If would-be Senator Joe Jingo mentions his disbelief in Evolution on the campaign stump, it would be because he expects it to be relevant to your vote: either reflecting on his character, his religion, his style of cogitation, or the policies that he intends to pursue. But what does it actually mean, especially to a rational or science-respecting voter? Can it be overlooked if you favor the candidate's other qualities?

Suppose that Joe knows the basic high-school biology, has read and carefully considered all the arguments on talk-origins, and has concluded in the end that Evolution is bunk. This would be irrational, I think, but not necessarily anti-rational. That is, he might still respect rational argument and scientific principles of knowledge while having incorrectly applied them in this case.

In your mind how would Joe compare with the incumbent Joanne, who proudly proclaims her belief in Evolution for some fallacious reason -- its popularity, for example?

I have not seen anyone answer your excellent question is quite this way, so I will attempt to do so now.

Belief in ID does not have to be a deal-killer in a politican. After all, George W. Bush got to be President twice and he is an ID believer.

However, he was rather careful not to be demonstrative about the fact either, which is probably why most people did not really care about the issue one way or the other.

I hope this helps!

wheunis · 11th May 2012, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Crossbow

I have not seen anyone answer your excellent question is quite this way, so I will attempt to do so now.

Belief in ID does not have to be a deal-killer in a politican. After all, George W. Bush got to be President twice and he is an ID believer.

However, he was rather careful not to be demonstrative about the fact either, which is probably why most people did not really care about the issue one way or the other.

I hope this helps!

I suppose the closest type of answer I can give myself, to match this:

No, I don't believe that a politicians beliefs in anything is a deal-killer, in and of itself.
What is, and should be, the deal-killer is whether or not he acts on forcing those beliefs onto others.

tomwaits · 11th May 2012, 05:55 AM

I admit that it would definitely give me some pause, as it shows a blind spot in critical thinking. But nobody's perfect, and it would depend on the candidate and what office they were seeking. So no, it wouldn't necessarily be a deal killer for me, but it would be a factor.

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Belief in ID does not have to be a deal-killer in a politican. After all, George W. Bush got to be President twice and he is an ID believer.

True, but what the Prez believes regarding evolution really doesn't matter, since most educational policy is determined locally, not federally.

9th May 2012, 07:52 PM	#42
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,212	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Saying "I'm a christian" is proof that he believes in the existence of an "Intelligent Designer". As I understand ID "theory" (note the quotation marks), it is evolved from creationism, but so watered down as to become almost completely meaningless. Effectively it means "Whatever happened, God did it". because it's so watered down, it is no longer tied to Young Earth Creationism. You can basically append "God did it" to the end of almost anything. It's not even necessarily attached to any concept of God anymore, it could even mean that life on earth was built by extra-terrestrials. I'm actually on your side on this. Like President Obama, I too believe in an Intelligent Designer, but I do not believe that ID "theory" belongs in science classrooms. Science is about formulating hypotheses and testing them. The big problem (among many) for ID "theory" is that it doesn't generate testable predictions. It's not science. Okay, I actually understand your explanation. However, while some people do believe that concept when they are talking about ID, that's not the official version. ID sets up a dichotomy of evolution vs ID. ID is supposed to disprove evolution as the life forms are irreducibly complex ala William Paley. Quote: "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent designer with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." When most people use the term "ID" they are talking about that.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 9th May 2012 at 08:00 PM.

10th May 2012, 07:28 AM	#45
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,066	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Saying "I'm a christian" is proof that he believes in the existence of an "Intelligent Designer". You used the phrase "Intelligent Designer"... do you equate that to a belief in "Intelligent Design"? I do believe its possible for someone to be both a Christian and a full fledged believer in evolution (i.e. no "intelligent design" anywhere.) They believe that god set up the conditions at the start of creation, and let things progress from there. Quote: As I understand ID "theory" (note the quotation marks), it is evolved from creationism, but so watered down as to become almost completely meaningless. Effectively it means "Whatever happened, God did it". because it's so watered down, it is no longer tied to Young Earth Creationism. You can basically append "God did it" to the end of almost anything. It's not even necessarily attached to any concept of God anymore, it could even mean that life on earth was built by extra-terrestrials. I wouldn't say its completely meaningless. I think the purpose of "Intelligent design" is to fill in the perceived gaps... e.g. if we know the general trend of evolution from fossils but not the point where our ancestors became bipedal, they invoke the "goddidit" and argue that there was some influence there. Don't know how the flagellum evolved? "goddidit". i.e. god is tinkering at specific points in our prehistory. This is different than a god who set up everything at the beginning and just let things progress without tinkering at specific points in time.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

10th May 2012, 07:32 AM	#46
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157	Originally Posted by Segnosaur You used the phrase "Intelligent Designer"... do you equate that to a belief in "Intelligent Design"? Yes. Why would Intelligent Design be possible without an Intelligent Designer? Or was it just some hillbilly gluing random stuff together that he found laying around?
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157

10th May 2012, 07:58 AM	#47
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,066	Originally Posted by wheunis Quote: You used the phrase "Intelligent Designer"... do you equate that to a belief in "Intelligent Design"? Yes. Why would Intelligent Design be possible without an Intelligent Designer? Or was it just some hillbilly gluing random stuff together that he found laying around? But as I pointed out, the concept of "intelligent design" might involve a certain amount of evolution, but with god "tinkering" now and again, whereas an "intelligent designer" might have been one that created everything correctly at the beginning, without the need for tinkering once things got started. So, all intelligent design would require an intelligent designer, but not all intelligent designers would work through intelligent design.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

10th May 2012, 08:04 AM	#48
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157	Originally Posted by Segnosaur So, all intelligent design would require an intelligent designer, but not all intelligent designers would work through intelligent design. So in the second half, you're saying that an Intelligent Designer would slap random **** together randomly, hold his thumbs and close his eyes, and if it doesn't work out - "yeah well I tried!" OR: Is it that you think the designer that manufactured the most perfect machine (universe) did not do it by intelligent design, but just banging balls together until something came of it? I am not certain I understand how you connect the part where an Intelligent Designer does not design by intelligence.
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157

9th May 2012, 06:28 PM	#41
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by RandFan How is "I believe in evolution" proof that Obama believes in ID? Saying "I'm a christian" is proof that he believes in the existence of an "Intelligent Designer". As I understand ID "theory" (note the quotation marks), it is evolved from creationism, but so watered down as to become almost completely meaningless. Effectively it means "Whatever happened, God did it". because it's so watered down, it is no longer tied to Young Earth Creationism. You can basically append "God did it" to the end of almost anything. It's not even necessarily attached to any concept of God anymore, it could even mean that life on earth was built by extra-terrestrials. I'm actually on your side on this. Like President Obama, I too believe in an Intelligent Designer, but I do not believe that ID "theory" belongs in science classrooms. Science is about formulating hypotheses and testing them. The big problem (among many) for ID "theory" is that it doesn't generate testable predictions. It's not science.

9th May 2012, 09:25 PM	#43
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,523	I'm pretty sure that no politician in Britain would dare say they were believers in intelligent design. Not publically anyway apart from George Galloway, possibly, in his relentless attempts to pander to the radical fringe of Islam. I think a politician who says they believe in ID is either a liar or a fool. Probably not worth voting for.

10th May 2012, 06:15 AM	#44
Multivac Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by Lamuella oh, would that it were so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S...(UK_politician) Hadn't heard of him. He also thinks homeopathy works. Sadder, but wiser.

10th May 2012, 08:09 AM	#49
Babbylonian Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lake Oswego, OR Posts: 4,470	Originally Posted by wheunis So in the second half, you're saying that an Intelligent Designer would slap random **** together randomly, hold his thumbs and close his eyes, and if it doesn't work out - "yeah well I tried!" OR: Is it that you think the designer that manufactured the most perfect machine (universe) did not do it by intelligent design, but just banging balls together until something came of it? I am not certain I understand how you connect the part where an Intelligent Designer does not design by intelligence. You're conflating the generic combination of the words "intelligent" and "design" with the specific ideology of "intelligent design."
	__________________ Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?

10th May 2012, 08:13 AM	#50
JeanFromBNA Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I do believe its possible for someone to be both a Christian and a full fledged believer in evolution (i.e. no "intelligent design" anywhere.) They believe that god set up the conditions at the start of creation, and let things progress from there. . This is what most of the lapsed or weakly religious that I encounter believe. You have to account for those that are afraid not to believe in god, and those politicians that find it politically expedient to believe in god.

10th May 2012, 08:53 AM	#51
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,066	Originally Posted by wheunis Quote: So, all intelligent design would require an intelligent designer, but not all intelligent designers would work through intelligent design So in the second half, you're saying that an Intelligent Designer would slap random **** together randomly, hold his thumbs and close his eyes, and if it doesn't work out - "yeah well I tried!" OR: Is it that you think the designer that manufactured the most perfect machine (universe) did not do it by intelligent design, but just banging balls together until something came of it? I'm thinking more of a super-intelligent god who is able to predict how things will end up depending on how he sets things up at the very beginning... i.e. "I will arrange the initial energy of the big bang to result in a planet where certain amino acids will be created that will lead to bacteria, etc..." This is opposed to a god who first creates earth and life, then says "OK, I have life, now I'll tinker with it to give bacteria flagellum." Then after a few million years says "OK, now I'll tinker with humans to give them a big brain".
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

10th May 2012, 08:58 AM	#52
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,066	[quote=JeanFromBNA;8273218] [quote]I do believe its possible for someone to be both a Christian and a full fledged believer in evolution (i.e. no "intelligent design" anywhere.) They believe that god set up the conditions at the start of creation, and let things progress from there. Quote: This is what most of the lapsed or weakly religious that I encounter believe. You have to account for those that are afraid not to believe in god, and those politicians that find it politically expedient to believe in god. I think it might also be the position of the Catholic church, which seems to have rejected "intelligent design".
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

10th May 2012, 11:34 AM	#53
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by RandFan ID is supposed to disprove evolution as the life forms are irreducibly complex ala William Paley. Quote: "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent designer with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." That's going beyond proposing the existence of an Intelligent Designer. By adding the part where lifeforms came into being in their current forms instantaneously, he's just pushing creationism under a different name.

10th May 2012, 11:51 AM	#54
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Segnosaur But as I pointed out, the concept of "intelligent design" might involve a certain amount of evolution, but with god "tinkering" now and again, whereas an "intelligent designer" might have been one that created everything correctly at the beginning, without the need for tinkering once things got started. Except that's not what happened. Our system that had everything set up at the beginning has gone off the rails several times and has had numerous resets, like the Chixulub Asteroid impact, the Siberian Flood Basalt event and various smaller extinctions. Assuming that Homo Sapiens in its current form was the desired end result of our Hypothetical Intelligent designer, it is probable that he intervened at numerous points in the process. And not just in the form of a massive asteroid when he noticed that Earth was cranking out massive reptilians when he wanted mid-sized mammalian forms. But... and this is where Science!™ comes in... we have no way of discerning between an asteroid hurled by God and one that smashed into us on its own. Nor can we tell between a DNA molecule nudged into a new configuration by an errant cosmic ray and one manipulated by the finger of God. At best, you can "Teach the Controversy" in philosophy or poli-sci classes, but it's just not science.

10th May 2012, 12:20 PM	#55
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,212	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth That's going beyond proposing the existence of an Intelligent Designer. By adding the part where lifeforms came into being in their current forms instantaneously, he's just pushing creationism under a different name. THAT'S ID. The term Intelligent Design exists for a very specific reason. To counter evolution. At the time of the Scopes trial creationists outlawed evolution. Eventually the courts ruled that unconstitutional so the creationists tried to come up with something that could compete with evolution scientifically. They called that "Creation Science". But the courts struck that down also. So then they got rid of the "creation" altogether and came up with an "intelligent designer". BTW: This is a matter of legal fact documented in the PBS documentary Judgement Day, Intelligent Design on Trial. Plaintiffs were able to demonstrate conclusively that Intelligent Design was simply old wine into new bottles. It's really fascinating. BTW: The judge who decided the case is a theist who believes in intelligent design (the generic version of ID that you previously defined). So, while I agree with your generic definition it's important to note that for many ID does not mean what you think it means. It means what those who coined it, coined it to mean. It's an alternative to evolution to account for the origins of man. For a more in-depth explanation of the evolution of ID (pun intended) by Eugenie Scott (consultant for the Dover Pplaintiffs) you can see here.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

10th May 2012, 03:58 PM	#56
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth . . . . . Assuming that Homo Sapiens in its current form was the desired end result of our Hypothetical Intelligent designer. . . . . . Your assumption is hanging waaaaay out there. There is no basis for this assumption - no evidence, no logic, no anything.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

11th May 2012, 04:36 AM	#57
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,294	Originally Posted by phildonnia If would-be Senator Joe Jingo mentions his disbelief in Evolution on the campaign stump, it would be because he expects it to be relevant to your vote: either reflecting on his character, his religion, his style of cogitation, or the policies that he intends to pursue. But what does it actually mean, especially to a rational or science-respecting voter? Can it be overlooked if you favor the candidate's other qualities? Suppose that Joe knows the basic high-school biology, has read and carefully considered all the arguments on talk-origins, and has concluded in the end that Evolution is bunk. This would be irrational, I think, but not necessarily anti-rational. That is, he might still respect rational argument and scientific principles of knowledge while having incorrectly applied them in this case. In your mind how would Joe compare with the incumbent Joanne, who proudly proclaims her belief in Evolution for some fallacious reason -- its popularity, for example? I have not seen anyone answer your excellent question is quite this way, so I will attempt to do so now. Belief in ID does not have to be a deal-killer in a politican. After all, George W. Bush got to be President twice and he is an ID believer. However, he was rather careful not to be demonstrative about the fact either, which is probably why most people did not really care about the issue one way or the other. I hope this helps!
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

11th May 2012, 05:03 AM	#58
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157	Originally Posted by Crossbow I have not seen anyone answer your excellent question is quite this way, so I will attempt to do so now. Belief in ID does not have to be a deal-killer in a politican. After all, George W. Bush got to be President twice and he is an ID believer. However, he was rather careful not to be demonstrative about the fact either, which is probably why most people did not really care about the issue one way or the other. I hope this helps! I suppose the closest type of answer I can give myself, to match this: No, I don't believe that a politicians beliefs in anything is a deal-killer, in and of itself. What is, and should be, the deal-killer is whether or not he acts on forcing those beliefs onto others.
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157

11th May 2012, 05:55 AM	#59
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	I admit that it would definitely give me some pause, as it shows a blind spot in critical thinking. But nobody's perfect, and it would depend on the candidate and what office they were seeking. So no, it wouldn't necessarily be a deal killer for me, but it would be a factor. Originally Posted by Crossbow Belief in ID does not have to be a deal-killer in a politican. After all, George W. Bush got to be President twice and he is an ID believer. True, but what the Prez believes regarding evolution really doesn't matter, since most educational policy is determined locally, not federally.