The only intelligence assumed by whom, precisely? Just because a significant fraction of people who support ID promote the idea of 'intelligence' being deified doesn't mean that is the only way for ID to come about. You are not addressing these points, you are merely dismissing them. You believe the idea of intelligence directing design is preposterous, but you give not explanation for your standpoint.

'Molecules don't have intelligence' is kind of a ridiculous statement. Theoretically, any system of sufficient complexity could be host to an intelligence. The only way to determine the presence of intelligence is to observe data and look for evidence of a modus operandi. And, frankly, I think that if you observe evolutionary history and you don't see at least some circumstantial evidence of a modus operandi, your analytical skills are incredibly flawed, at best.

This is not to say that circumstantial evidence of intelligence is a good basis for scientific theory, but it is enough to push the concept into the realm of feasibility. It isn't logical to mock the viewpoint simply because you disagree with one or two possible suggestions.

I'm afraid that you'll have to address why you think that an intelligence -was not- responsible for the evolution of life on the planet before you convince me to dismiss the idea out of hand. Conversely, any die-hard ID enthusiast is going to have to try a bit better than 'Do you really think you were once a monkey?' in order to convince me that evolution is simply a worthless concept.

I think more damage is being done to the youth of this country by simply posing the debate in an A vs. B fashion then anything else. By forcing any and all discussion on the subject into one or two camps you destroy the capacity for logical analysis, and the decision simply becomes one of 'faith.' Then children, whether or not ID is taught in schools, will simply see the entire debate as an argument between whether they believe in God or Science, instead of an issue that they can logically assess and come to their own conclusions about.

The fact that you don't believe in ID doesn't bother me one bit. But the fact that you've boxed off your mind so completely that you're unwilling to hypothesize about any option that doesn't fall under black or white vexes me. Even more disturbing is that you seem to be troubled by the idea of allowing people (children!) to make up their own minds instead of force feeding them a freeze dried conclusion.

I strongly feel that we need to keep talk of God the hell out of public schools. But doing this at the expense of free thought is criminal.

It's ok. We've only got about 40 years before this sort of strictly in the box thinking causes the average level of the American IQ falls so low that the UN supports our annexation by Canada to prevent our nuclear stockpile from falling into the hands of a mentally disabled dictator anyway.

The thing that kills me (aside from peanut butter video) is what does the dispute God/no-Good does on the forum of the Sins of the Solar Empire... it’s so random.

However, since ya having this discussion, isnt there a theologies course in some universities, catholic and other religious schools in US? Why does the state has to sponsor any one group of believers? Why does the state has to acknowledge any kind of any religious institutions in schools? (Which already lock in funding as they are) Why not then simply abandon the senate, abandon the white house and the Supreme Court, and move our government to a some kind of multi-religious church with priests as our bureaucrats instead of elected officials and so on? We might as well go back to medieval days, and hell, if I get to have a castle, knights, girls in bikini and electricity ill be the first to say -Yap.
  

Really? You can't observe bacteria reproducing and gaining traits in the lab? Or moths changing color over fifty or so years?



No, you said that the idea of intelligence through molecular processes is valid, so the burden of proof is on you both to define that and present the evidence that it exists or at least the evidence the believers in it have. Otherwise you're just throwing around intelligent-sounding (pun unintended) terms that don't apply. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the assumption, I don't have to disprove things for you.

I understand the argument that a system can have intelligence, but it's being misapplied here. For example, you may have a bunch of independently acting robots that have a sum action that we could view as "intelligent", perhaps moving one way or creating something. Monkeys on typewriters, etc. But that intelligence is made up of the sum of its parts, so the argument is circular - an intelligent system created another intelligent system. So you either have to define your first intelligent system or assume that the intelligent system was derived from an unintelligent one.



That's a straw-man. I'm willing to consider alternative theories if they have evidence. ID is bullshit through and through, its only means of persistence is hanging on a tattered string. clinging to the few problems that are being resolved daily in evolutionary science.



Making up their own minds is fine, but presenting ID and evolution as equivalent is misleading. It's like asking a child whether they want ten million dollars or ten dollars when they don't know the number system, or telling them they're the same thing. It's false equivalency.

My personal viewpoints is: the only reason Theory of Evolution is still dubbed as a theory and not as a factual condition of the development of life on planet Earth, is because it disagrees with some scriptures which are a few thousand years out of date but still very dear to a lot of people.

But, if the Fact of Evolution teaches us anything, it is that true change takes time. As it is with flesh, so it is with mind.

Intelligent design is made by stupid people to make more stupid people. You need to be really stupid or just ignorant to believe in Intelligent design.

What DON'T they have to do with hippos and whales? The only difference is the time between generations.

Yes; that is precisely what I'm saying



You make an extremely good point! How could an entropic process lead to order? So the traiditional evolutionary theory can't be perfectly valid, right? Then perhaps an amendment should be made...
(I'll just clear up why I hold the "evolution guided by God"-type approach: Both parents and my brother are trained as scientists - the former as geologists. I'm training as an engineer. As Christians, there has never been a problem in our house about the difference in science and religion; religion is why we're here, what we're for, etc - it is, of course, the main consideration in our lives. Science investigates the tools of God - so evolution (or any sort of theory concerning our past, including those of geology and astronomy) is merely a "how". This is why, for us, we have no trouble reconciling these two. We also see no contradictions between the two, for various reasons. For us, though, this reconciliation is only for the sake of our science, and by no means affects our Christianity.)

Sorry about that Now, about evolution - if we accept that it is imperfect as a theory, then we need a modification. But I don't think a total replacement by ID is the answer, because, as you know, I don't think ID qualifies as science. The problem is whether or not we find evidence supporting ID. Doubtless, both of us have been exposed to tons of evidence (indeed, proof) concerning the existence of God, but the problem is this evidence is neither verifiable nor repeatable in a scientific context, for the simple reason that God won't be tested. In short, I don't think ID can be tested, so it shouldn't be taught as a science. I think it should most certainly be taught when concerning "metaphysical" questions, just not in the science classroom.

Further, despite the problems we see with it, evolution still seems to be the best theory we have at the moment (scientifically speaking). I think the mechanism needs to be improved, and one or two amendments made - we just don't know what those amendments are. I don't think that science is inadequate in its ability to measure here, because, as you so cogently summarized: Is it too much to say that if God had created the world, he would have created the universal laws such that he wouldn't have to break them to get everything done? There is no reason to bring God's intervention into the theory, because God would have made the "theory" perfect. It just seems that our understanding of that theory is imperfect, so we argue about it.

*phew* long talk; I hope I make sense I agree with you though - this is rather enjoyable!

Hey, what did happen to the female would be prime minister? She died horribly.
A few successes don’t account for greater and more numerous failures. No matter how well such small success are, the big picture is what important. The Big picture of Pakistan is (and while I more care about our failures in Iraq and china, it is what it seems to be as it is) such: essentially a country fully supported by US currency, at near constant war with nuclear capable India, shares borders with Iran Afghanistan, and unlike Iran has very real nuclear weapons with developed carriers, incredibly unstable country, with raging Islamic fanatics openly saying how they would kill every Jew Hindu, and American ( and that means us, me and you) using the nuclear capability of what country. Nether are they too far away from getting power. It's a far more dangerous extreme wean Iran hopefully will ever be. And yes, they tech religion at schools, Islam to be correct, radical Islam to be more correct, and any religious state can become radical given the necessity and opportunity.

No one said anything of the kind, and our arguments aren't nearly as obviously ludicrous as this one. There's nothing wrong with a thirteen-billion-year-old universe, metamorphic rocks, dinosaurs who didn't live at the same time as humans, and so on. Some on here might disagree with me, but don't generalize. It's unpleasant and totally unnecessary. It also reflects poorly on the person's intelligence, but there isn't enough evidence here to support that theory.
Do you really think that a Christian can't be scientist?

Thats right they are not NEARLY AS OBVIOUSLY ludicrous... that is the whole problem. I think that christians can be scientists. My parents are... I just don't think that ID Christians can be scientists, cause it's just not a science. It's belief.

Thanks elias001. And why can't evolution be ID, too? The concept of evolution is awesome. A process of constant self-improvement? Independently? I think that is so ingenious.. why can't that be an intelligent design? (For you IDs out there) Just because it's random? It even isn't. It is defined by specific parameters. Certain traits get singled out cause they are better. Better is good. You don't get eaten. And there you are. We even evolved to a stage where we can leave this world, to evade a desaster like that of the mighty dinosaurs. I might quote that totally great book The Elegant Universe. If, at the big bang, certain parameters were set, it will play out how it should (for ease of argument not counting in Uncertainty and Entropy right now, that make things interesting, you know, I am not in favor of a deterministic Universe) Think of it as a huge simulation with many definded parameters and as much unknown variables (making it non-deterministic). How will it play out? Let's see.

Ok then; sorry - I must have misunderstood. I agree with you.



Funnily enough, that's the point I've been trying to make I just don't think that evolution is quite there, but I also don't think ID is the answer to evolution's flaws, scientifically speaking.

But keep in mind that some on here are quite reasonable in their arguments - one example is Legerdemain. A believer in ID isn't necessarily unreasonable or idiotic - just listen, and argue logically.

Ok, firstly before I post my thoughts, some disclaimers firstly, I live in the UK so this debate doesnt directly effect me, secondly by and large, I'm a skeptic both of religion and of science.

Now that said, this debate has always been one that fascinated me, not the topic of the debate, but the debate itself, because it is largely argued by people with very little grasp of the topics at hand, at best on this planet a tiny fraction of the percent of the population actually understand evolutionary science and no, getting told information at school doesnt count as understanding, thats merely regurgitating information that you have taken on faith to be true.

The debate to me just seems indicative of society as a whole, religion has become afraid of science because people have stopped looking for meaning, and science has forgotten that religious people (whether priests or simply believers) were behind pretty much every piece of rational and scientific thought (including Genetics) from the 5th century AD till the 18th century and are the only reason we know Anything of science (well techinically philosophy) previous to that.

In case anyone is wondering what my opinion on the content of the debate itself, I don't believe that the school system should be teaching people What to think, merely how to think for themselves. There is simply no way of proving Evolution or ID to someone in a classroom, you should present both cases and then discuss them at great length, simply presenting either as fact will only lead to a more divided society than you have now.

As a last aside, I would like to take issue with one of the statements, that i assume the film made, in the opening post, and that is linking Evolution to Nazism. Thats just rubbish, the Eugenics practiced by the Nazis had at best vapid links with evolutionary theory, it was a political ideology, one shared by a great amount of people from every country in the world, both during and a century prior to the war, it just used pseudo-science as an excuse for racial dominance.