How do you "teach" ID?

Dixie said:
Intelligent design theorists have much more going for their hypothesis than.. I can't explain it, so God must be responsible. I have made several valid scientific arguments supporting the hypothesis, without ever mentioning a God.

What is stupid and ignorant, is refuting something on the basis that you don't believe it possible.
Click to expand...

Really? They do? What do they have? What formal theories? I haven't heard any. I haven't even heard so much as a testable hypothesis comming from the ID camp. Can you show me just one, just one peer reviewed ID paper? Just one?

You've made no valid arguments, at all. All's you've demonstrated, quite clearly, as just about everyone here with a science background has told you, that you don't understand what science is.


Every time someone ask you. Show me the facts? Give me a testable hypothesis? What natural behavior does ID model? You come back either with empty rhetoric or a willfull ignorance of science and the scientific method.
 
Oh....by the way Dixie....who are these ID theorist? What papers have they published supporting ID? Please forward me just one peer reviewed paper published by these ID supporter.....just one! I mean if they have a theory they should have published it in the scientific literature right? I mean it is standard practice in science. Please forward to me just one of their published papers.
 
Onceler said:
"I have made several valid scientific arguments supporting the hypothesis"

They're only valid because you say they're valid, but they all boil down to things you can't explain, so you insert God (you don't mention God, but the implication is as clear as can be).

For example, when you say that many has always worshipped something, you assume that must mean there "is" something, and fail to consider other possible reasons for man's history of spiritual belief (fear, explaining the unknown, the need to bring order to what is an incomprehensible universe, etc.)
Click to expand...

No, actually I use the tested theories of one, Charles Darwin, who states in his Theory of Natural Selection, a species evolves by retaining fundamentally desirable attributes, while discarding undesirable attributes, as they relate to the survival of the species. Indeed, man does operate on logic, and does need an explanation for how such a diverse and complex universe came to be, and this indisputable fact is the basis for considering the possibility it was created by intelligence.

There is no valid logical reason for man's retaining spiritual belief, unless it is fundamental to human survival, and every indication is, it has been. In fact, a noted psychologist once said, mankind is so connected to spirituality, if there were no such thing as God, we would have to invent him. Man could simply not exist in a Godless world. NOTE: When I use the term "God" here, I do not mean or intend any particular perception of this entity, rather the concept in general, of something greater than self, or a supreme power.

Biological and Psychological evidence is Science. As much as you wish to deny it, or claim it hasn't been presented, or try to spin it into something other than science, it is still valid and legitimate scientific evidence to support the argument I have made. It all boils down to what you personally have faith in. Myself, I try not to make scientific assumptions and conclusions on personal faith, I think it is detrimental to knowledge and science. I tend to leave the possibilities open, and continue to explore them all. Including the reasons for the very real and profound connection man has, to this idea we were 'created' by something much greater. It's just a possibility I can't refute or conclude is not there, and it has very valid and legitimate support.

In order to see this from my perspective, you must remove the roadblocks you've established in your mind. You simply can't conclude man is connected to spirituality to 'explain the unexplained' and not continue to ask, why is this so? We can observe that no other species of life does this, it is a unique quality of mankind. Why do we have this fundamental "need" to explain the unexplained? Where did this attribute evolve from? Dogs, Horses, Monkeys, Fish... don't have any "need" to explain the unexplained, especially not to the point of creating some 'mythical figurehead' to worship, in order to do it.

You see, you have stopped asking questions because you have drawn a conclusion, largely based on your own personal faith. This is not how mankind has ever achieved anything in Science, to my knowledge. You must always continue to ask, why? Why does mankind have to create Gods to explain the unexplained, what difference does it make, particularly if there is nothing to it? Why don't other primates have to explain the unexplained by developing worship and spirituality? Can you explain this? I can't, because there is no explanation. Theoretically, according to Darwin, we should see some indication of this trait, in lower 'ancestors' of our 'family tree' and we don't.

Why?
 
"There is no valid logical reason for man's retaining spiritual belief, unless it is fundamental to human survival"

Says who?
 
Mottleydude said:
Really? They do? What do they have? What formal theories? I haven't heard any. I haven't even heard so much as a testable hypothesis comming from the ID camp. Can you show me just one, just one peer reviewed ID paper? Just one?

You've made no valid arguments, at all. All's you've demonstrated, quite clearly, as just about everyone here with a science background has told you, that you don't understand what science is.


Every time someone ask you. Show me the facts? Give me a testable hypothesis? What natural behavior does ID model? You come back either with empty rhetoric or a willfull ignorance of science and the scientific method.
Click to expand...

A Hypothesis:
hy·poth·e·sis [hahy-poth-uh-sis,]
–noun, plural -ses

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.

You obviously don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. So I have posted this definition for you, I apologize to the rest of the intelligent people here who already knew what a hypothesis was.

As I have said, in about a dozen or so threads on the topic now... and it won't change... Intelligent Design has scientific support, you just don't have personal faith in the science, and have made conclusions based on your own personal faiths. You are not qualified to question my scientific credentials because you have stopped being a scientist, and have become an ideologue. You are openly refuting consideration of any further possibility or questions, and thus, knowledge. Therefore, you will remain in ignorance, as mankind has often done through history.
 
Dixie said:
It's just a possibility I can't refute or conclude is not there, and it has very valid and legitimate support.
Click to expand...
Where? All i've ever seen is the "everything is so complex there HAS to be a creator" non-sequitur of yours.


Call it a roadblock, call it a standard for rational discourse, there is, indeed, something in the way.
 
Onceler said:
"There is no valid logical reason for man's retaining spiritual belief, unless it is fundamental to human survival"

Says who?
Click to expand...

Darwin, for one. If spirituality were not fundamental to the survival of the species, we would have discarded it thousands of years ago. We haven't. If it were only some insignificant thing we didn't need, we wouldn't be so devoutly connected to it as a species. We are. If it were something man could live without, we would. We don't.

I won't argue "Religion" here, I am not a big fan of organized human religion, and I agree with many, it has been the root of many problems and turmoil, and the cause of many deaths and oppressions through history. But this fact in itself, supports my argument here, if mankind's spiritual belief weren't so vitally important to the species, wouldn't the aspects of human intelligent civilization have done away with something causing so much human turmoil by now? Instead, more humans worship something now, than ever in history, and many of them do this to the extreme. It's apparently pretty important to a lot of people, for something completely insignificant and unneeded by the species.
 
Dixie said:
Darwin, for one. If spirituality were not fundamental to the survival of the species, we would have discarded it thousands of years ago. We haven't. If it were only some insignificant thing we didn't need, we wouldn't be so devoutly connected to it as a species. We are. If it were something man could live without, we would. We don't.

I won't argue "Religion" here, I am not a big fan of organized human religion, and I agree with many, it has been the root of many problems and turmoil, and the cause of many deaths and oppressions through history. But this fact in itself, supports my argument here, if mankind's spiritual belief weren't so vitally important to the species, wouldn't the aspects of human intelligent civilization have done away with something causing so much human turmoil by now? Instead, more humans worship something now, than ever in history, and many of them do this to the extreme. It's apparently pretty important to a lot of people, for something completely insignificant and unneeded by the species.
Click to expand...

Man's need to construct a greater framework of meaning has nothing to do with ID as actual science. We may indeed prefer to tell ourselves stories to construct a meaning for our lives, but we need not therefore inject this proclivity into the hard sciences or use it as a justification of continued dark age style knowledge suppression.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Where? All i've ever seen is the "everything is so complex there HAS to be a creator" non-sequitur of yours.

Call it a roadblock, call it a standard for rational discourse, there is, indeed, something in the way.
Click to expand...

I'll call it a mental roadblock, but it's on your side... you have apparently not read the pages and pages of biological, psychological, and scientific evidence I have presented. I think you can do a search and find them, if you would like to try again. I don't feel the need to keep repeating them over and over, especially for someone who can't comprehend what they read anyway.
 
Dixie said:
I'll call it a mental roadblock, but it's on your side... you have apparently not read the pages and pages of biological, psychological, and scientific evidence I have presented. I think you can do a search and find them, if you would like to try again. I don't feel the need to keep repeating them over and over, especially for someone who can't comprehend what they read anyway.
Click to expand...


The sheer volume of your stupidity doesn't make it less stupid. Apparently you DO feel the need to keep repeating it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Man's need to construct a greater framework of meaning has nothing to do with ID as actual science. We may indeed prefer to tell ourselves stories to construct a meaning for our lives, but we need not therefore inject this proclivity into the hard sciences or use it as a justification of continued dark age style knowledge suppression.
Click to expand...

Why can't we interject this proclivity into the hard sciences? I want to interject it! I want to put it under the scientific microscope and examine it! tell me why you don't think we should do this? Explain to me, why mankind has this 'preference to tell ourselves stories' or construct a 'meaning' for life? What makes that so important to our species? Why, if it is some meaningless and superstitious "dark age" practice, did mankind not get rid of the practice in the Dark Ages?

Notice, I am still asking questions here, you have stopped. You have drawn "dark age" conclusions and assumptions, based on "dark age" ignorance and denial. I am the one who is curious enough to examine the possibilities and not afraid to apply science and continue to ask questions, you are the one maintaining faith in your personal beliefs. You have become everything you claim to hate... in the words of the great Alanis Morissette... Isn't it Ironic?
 
Dixie said:
Darwin, for one. If spirituality were not fundamental to the survival of the species, we would have discarded it thousands of years ago. We haven't. If it were only some insignificant thing we didn't need, we wouldn't be so devoutly connected to it as a species. We are. If it were something man could live without, we would. We don't.

I won't argue "Religion" here, I am not a big fan of organized human religion, and I agree with many, it has been the root of many problems and turmoil, and the cause of many deaths and oppressions through history. But this fact in itself, supports my argument here, if mankind's spiritual belief weren't so vitally important to the species, wouldn't the aspects of human intelligent civilization have done away with something causing so much human turmoil by now? Instead, more humans worship something now, than ever in history, and many of them do this to the extreme. It's apparently pretty important to a lot of people, for something completely insignificant and unneeded by the species.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a mental thing, not a physical adaptation. We have a few of those that we don't need anymore, either.

Clearly, there are people who survive & thrive without spiritual belief. It is not necessary to the survival of the species; no more so than the appendix.

Your "theory" is based on almost nothing but conjecture, and biased speculation.
 
Onceler said:
You're talking about a mental thing, not a physical adaptation. We have a few of those that we don't need anymore, either.

Clearly, there are people who survive & thrive without spiritual belief. It is not necessary to the survival of the species; no more so than the appendix.

Your "theory" is based on almost nothing but conjecture, and biased speculation.
Click to expand...

Actually, people without spirituality do not survive and thrive as well, and you haven't proven this assertion in any way. The fact that mankind still practices (strongly) his spiritual beliefs, is evidence it is fundamental to the species. The appendix is something that is there, like the tail bone, which we simply no longer use. Humans need and use spirituality daily, and unless you figure out a way for 4% of the people to eliminate 96% of the people, you will never eliminate the need for spirituality in humans.

You can certainly claim this is conjecture and biased speculation, I don't expect you to do anything else, because there is nothing else you can do. You certainly can't offer evidence to counter my points, or refute the evidence I have presented to support them.
 
Dixie said:
The fact that mankind still practices (strongly) his spiritual beliefs, is evidence it is fundamental to the species.
Howso?

Is the fact that mankind still practiced burning witches 400 years ago implicit evidence that burning witches is fundamental to the species?

Dixie said:
4% of the people to eliminate 96% of the people, you will never eliminate the need for spirituality in humans.

You've got your numbers wrong. 20% of the world no longer holds any belief in a higher power, leprachauns, ghosts, and other such nonsense. That's right. Since you've grown up, atheism has increased in popularity fivefold. I wonder, if in another 100 years (since that's probably how old you are) it increases another fivefold, how big it will be then?

Hmm....

This is like 1/3!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Dixie said:
I've given you a testable hypothesis, you didn't want to take the test. As for giving you something to prove Intelligent Design, I will do this as soon as you give me something to prove Abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

You can test the conditions that create rudimentary life-like structures in a lab. They've been doing it since the 60s, though I can't presently find a youtube video to explain it to you. For Intelligent Design to be science you have to have a testable hypothesis.

Abiogenesis is constantly brought up by creationists because its easy to attack if you don't understand it. Dixie, you are the least scientifically literate man on this board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top