intelligent design

by truth finder 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  truth finder

  I have done extensive thought about the intelligent design theory. The bad comments coming from the evolutionists are flagrant. As a student seeking graduate study in philosophy, I feel that the Teleological argument & the Cosmological (although this is not from my understanding this one has no relation to intelligent design) arguments should be mentioned when a teacher starts making statements about our possible origins, since there exists a few scientists who do not believe in evolution from nothing (the teleological arguement has a greater following).

  However, to teach an entire class (like the statues of Daedalus, my knowledge in this ( see Plato's Meno towards the end, before Meno is led to the conclusion that virtue is right opinion) that run away if not tied down, I cannot seem to remember the entire wants of the creationists) seems more religious based. But to include it some point when inferences are being made to Man's possible origins is perfectly fine.

  The whole intelligent design theory, if strictly based on tradditional biblical support, does have some difficulties based on sciences understanding. However, taken for what it is, a philosophical theory, which in my opinion is also scientific, the teleological argument is perfectly fine. But, the ontological argument, which is also the weakest argument (My epistemology teacher Michael expalined this) since it is actually explaining only a necessary condition of God, or any supposed perfect being, is definitely a religious based argument.

  A reduction to the absurd can show how those against the creationist theory(some at least) are wrong:

  If, 1. R then [~B* B]

  2. ~[B*B] since, contradictions are false

  So,3. ~R modus tollens

  R= Any (notice I did not say some) part of creationist theory should not be allowed to be taught in Public schools

  B= It will free our schools from religious based and not scientific. (By way of logic we know that this is not all true)

  I have not been keeping track of the current debate, but I do know that the entire creationist theory is not biblically based.

  I will not get into all the specifics of both arguments but I do know that they are:

  (a) based from the empirical

  (b) more believable than a theory that says we come out of nowhere.

  Now the teleological argument is an argument from analogy, and the cosmological argument stops a viscious regress, but runs into difficulties for some to who do not want to believe in a self-caused agent. If we stop with most evolutionist's idea of where we came from, we run into many problems. No theory can circumvent the philosophical problems created by the evolutionist's idea of Man's origins. I contend that

  (a) There exists some evolutionists who belief in a creator

  (b) If these 2-arguments are not allowed into the picture, then no teacher has the right to infer Man's possible origins, since the former theories are from the empirical.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  ??? Well I must be proof of the missing link - I do not understand
• 

  mkr32208

  Anybody have the little pot smoking smiley???
• 

  Forscher

  Truth finder is just using a highly technical way to get to an end. I am not sure, but I think he arrives at the thought that neither position can really be proven.
  The problem with the dialouge (for lack of a better word) between orthodox scientist and their ID bretheren is one of a philisophical view. Basically, the orthodox scientist defines science as the search for explanations concerning the universe from a purely materialistic point of view. That view takes as axiomatic that there cannot be a creator other than material causes. Thus, any theory which admits otherwise cannot, by virtue of its admission, be considered scientific.
  The orthodox scientist is thus locked into a particular philisophical outlook, materialism, and fits all data and observations into that framework. ID attacks that system at its very foundation. If it can be shown that certain results could only come about through an intelligent intervention, then the whole carefully constructed system of science based on the assumption that there cannot be such an intervention comes crashing down. That is why the scientific community is pulling out all the stops to supress ID. ID is a dangerous heresy as far as they are concerned!
  Dialouge between the orthodox and the ID is impossible because they cannot agree on axioms to frame their understanding with. The orthodox scientist must see all the evidence through his/her narrow outlook and force it to fit that mold. The ID proponent, on the other hand, is more open in his/her outlook and free to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
  The orthodox claim that ID is nothing but Evangelical Creationism by a new name is nothing more than misimformation meant to cloud the debate with rank ad hominism. True, many Evangelicals and other Christians have embraced it, but that does not mean it is what the propagandists would have us think. ID is a philisophical way to view the evidence, nothing more. It imposes no religious orthodoxy on science. ID does not demand that we believe in a six 24 hr day creation of the universe about six thousand years ago. It still demands that any evidence for creation must conform to what is known (that creation, if it occured, must be much farther in our past since light from many objects are known to have travelled more than 6,000 years). The tactics that the materialists are using to suppress ID will backfire on them in the end since it reveals them to be no more open minded than the religious fanatics they so claim to abhor.
  Truth finder has it right. It is a difference between two philosophies! Either of which requires a certain amount of faith. that is the thing to remember about the issue.
  
  Forscher
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  the people most concerned with "proving" ID are indeed, xians. muslims and jews and others are creationists too, but seem to not be

  as concerned with proving anything, or disproving anything.

  I feel that the Teleological argument & the Cosmological (although this is not from my understanding this one has no relation to intelligent design)

  arguments should be mentioned when a teacher starts making statements about our possible origins,

  and that's just the thing. talking about origins in science class is really just like having philosophical discussions in science class. it's not such

  a big deal. no one is going to stop teachers from doing whatever the hell they want. the question i have is: "do kids know that the strongest supporters

  of ID are xian fundies?" fundies are always going on and on about how ID has nothing to do with xianity. but screw me if they are not the only ones

  going on and on about it!

  hypotheses on origins are fascinating, no doubt. but it's not biology. not now anyways. plus, even if there was a creator who started it all, it still does

  not help scientists understand origins ANY BETTER. you are still left at square # 1 in trying

  to figure origins out, because ID does not provide a framework for discovery. so, if ID doesn't technically help the origins

  discussion in technically scientific circles, it's sure as hell not going to help kids learn about biology.

  TS
• 

  Reluctant Buddha

  Too bad "truth finder" you werent around to read my rather lengthy discussion for all the new discoveries that are pointing back to an eternally osciallting universe, an infinite regression of "big bangs."
  
  Nate Merit Met.D.