Intelligent Designer (ritual, Earth, beliefs, soul, Jehovah)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Prima

I think this is because the loudest voices are those of the extremes.

No, it's because, there is no more scientific basis for "connecting an Intelligent Designer with evolution" that there is for 'connecting a Leprechaun with Maxwell's Theory'.

[michel]

Originally Posted by justa_gurl

... there are a thousand topics here and i'm not sure which to approach first.


It is the nature of evolution for things to make small changes over a long period of time. Nature is not moral or immoral but functions in a steady flow in an efficient yet adaptative way according to specific rules. These rules are observable and repeatable, always changing but never deviating and completely without any sort of hierarchical prioritization of it's parts. Upon immediate mention of "God" you suggest to stray from those most basic principles. Religion does what science does not. It affirms knowledge of a metaphysical element in nature, knowledge essential to its entire structure can not be confirmed, agreed upon, or even morally justified by a great many people. It is also knowledge which very often prioritizes people over animals or people over people based solely on these unconfirmed and variable beliefs.

Hypothesizing or theoreorizing that the universe in its vastness was designed intelligently is one thing but Religion doesn't make theories, it makes assertions. It attempts to confirmation knowledge fundamental to its cause while entirely unconfirmed by any natural means. It is a BIG assertion not to mention an extremely dangerous one. Saying one can know God is saying once can understand the nature, attitudes, and motives of a 'force behind all creation'. It is a very presumptuous claim with many pits and turns. Religion can attempt to "strive to promote that truthfulness and rationality" but you must understand that 'what is' and 'what might be' should not be confused and makes for a very dangerous combination. Religion is a moral and spiritual foundation for personal understanding and relation to life, it is NOT a pass to make wild assertions and ethical judgements about the 'will and mind' of the universe in whole. That, i believe is why evolution strays away from the notion of an Intelligent Designer.

The universe is an all encompassing wisdom. I agree. By experience we gain knowledge and based on that knowledge we grow in understanding. But where we have no experience (the mind of God or what lies beyond our phsyical world) we have no knowledge and should therefore avoid making presumptious claims with any sort of false authority.

A very bold statement. Can you explain to me how logic and rationality does not support the god of Spinoza, Einstein, and Hawking? It seems there are many forms of logic that all and none are always and never correct when beliefs are concerned.

Well hey, Justa_Gurl, Namaste.

I notice that this is your first post - and, what an entry! Welcome to the forum. You obviously have a refreshingly healthy attitude in your arguments. I look forward to reading more from you; perhaps you could introduce yourself, in a new thread - it would be good to get an 'image' of you.

[KKawohl]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

No, it's because, there is no more scientific basis for "connecting an Intelligent Designer with evolution" that there is for 'connecting a Leprechaun with Maxwell's Theory'.

Ah, yes, here again we see the hypothesis of our SuperEinstein who contradicts Einstein who said “God, seems to be an "intelligence" or "superior reasoning power" which was behind the laws and harmonies of the universe".

[KKawohl]

Originally Posted by Prima

I'd like to get to that first question, since this debate has kind of ignored it...I think that you're right that people in general 'shy away' from this idea (the people on this forum being obvious exceptions, having usually at least addressed the idea)

I think this is because the loudest voices are those of the extremes. You have the Christian fundamentalists yelling out their views, and those who believe the universe was created without God yelling out their views, and those who believe anything in between are pretty drowned out.

Also, the idea of separation of church and state has encouraged this separation of thought. Science and education are generally connected with the state/government, and the religious view is supposed to stay separate.

Touche...but the concept of Intelligent Design and spirituality is supported by Einstein and many scientists. Religions are the culmination of their own dogma and politics and have often become something other than spirituality and should be kept out of state institutions.

[Tawn]

Originally Posted by KKawohl

Ah, yes, here again we see the hypothesis of our SuperEinstein who contradicts Einstein who said “God, seems to be an "intelligence" or "superior reasoning power" which was behind the laws and harmonies of the universe".

What Einstein said or didnt say is irrelevant. What is important is whether his statements can be backed up.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

If he did, indeed, say such a thing, his punctuation and tense sucked. Be that as it may, would you like to discuss your childish name-calling or your pathetic appeal to authority?

I'd prefer a discussion about the thread topic... but that's just me.

Originally Posted by KKawohl

Ah, yes, here again we see the hypothesis of our SuperEinstein who contradicts Einstein who said “God, seems to be an "intelligence" or "superior reasoning power" which was behind the laws and harmonies of the universe".

OK.... the name-calling has got to stop... now.

... but on point: What the heck does Einstein's quote have to do with science?

Deut remarked: there is no more scientific basis for "connecting an Intelligent Designer with evolution" that there is for 'connecting a Leprechaun with Maxwell's Theory'.

....and you decided to counter with a quote from a scientist that contained NO SCIENCE.

Just because someone is a scientist, does not mean that when they discuss that something "SEEMS" a certain way, that it has credibility as scientific theory or fact.

Scott

[KKawohl]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

I'd prefer a discussion about the thread topic... but that's just me.
OK.... the name-calling has got to stop... now.

... but on point: What the heck does Einstein's quote have to do with science?

Deut remarked: there is no more scientific basis for "connecting an Intelligent Designer with evolution" that there is for 'connecting a Leprechaun with Maxwell's Theory'.

....and you decided to counter with a quote from a scientist that contained NO SCIENCE.

Just because someone is a scientist, does not mean that when they discuss that something "SEEMS" a certain way, that it has credibility as scientific theory or fact.

Scott

Hi Scott,

I apologize and will desist...but,but but my referral to SuperEinstein is, if someone contradicts Einstein then he must considers himself more intelligent than Einstein...which I suppose many people today are....but I will desist.

Scientific theories are always challenged and the "Theory of Intelligent Design", IMHO, has as much validity as the "Theory of Evolution". ID does not in my opinion in any way constitute creation. Design is a plan, sketch, diagram, model. Intelligent in German means "geistreich". (spiritual intellect)

Kurt

[KKawohl]

Originally Posted by Tawn

What Einstein said or didnt say is irrelevant. What is important is whether his statements can be backed up.

We are dealing with theories, a coherent group of assumptions; a body of principles belonging to a certain subject; speculation, hypothesis....not provable facts. The "Intelligent Design" is a theory like the "Theory of Evolution".

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

... but on point: What the heck does Einstein's quote have to do with science?

In all fairness to Einstein, "quote" might be too strong a term. what he actually said was:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

[Cited by Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Einstein, New York, 1948]

In other words, Einstein was not in any way speaking of a "scientific basis" but, rather, a "deeply emotional conviction" - one which I both respect and reject. What I don't respect is seeing his remarks distorted for the sake of apologetics.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by KKawohl

We are dealing with theories, a coherent group of assumptions; a body of principles belonging to a certain subject; speculation, hypothesis....not provable facts. The "Intelligent Design" is a theory like the "Theory of Evolution".

No, it is not. A scientific theory is a testable (and falsifiable) explanation.