Re: The Fuhrer Principle

"Badger North" <young_forest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> See, this is the great thing about ID. It can't be proven or
> disproven because its adherants have consistently avoided defining
> what it is.

No they haven't.
It's the difference between a cosmology built on random chance in chaos, as
contrasted with an intent to order.
Nothing to do with biblestuff or jesus or any of that- and a long, long
history of precedent independent of jesusbibleguys.

> What 'real options of ID'? There's no research, no theory, it
> predicts nothing, it explains nothing, is not falsifiable, and yet its
> proponents call it a valid science - that is, when they aren't saying
> its a religious proposal.

you mis-state.
The whole theory of Intelligent Design is an intellectual/academic attempt
to explain the obvious *without* reference to a particular theology.
Things work because they're meant to work, not because pie fell out of the
sky in a random expression of chaos.

>>> As in 'what happened before the Big Bang'?
>>Not so much as what the Event was- the difference between a Big Bang and
>>the
>>Word.
> And when they find evidence of the Word they will have to either see
> how that fits with previous theory, or create a new one.

The evidence of the Word is in everything around you- it's not a random
accident of chaos theory. It is the Body of the Lord, and if you care to be
saved rather than shat, best be a useful part.

> Except that science is not athiesm. It neither requires, nor does not
> require a god, or belief in a god. It is neutral to the issue.

A commonality with atheists, and useful to their agenda-
As I say- I don't find a quarrel with that- until you're not neutral and
want to control the curriculum in compulsory education.

> One
> could say God invested penicillin with antibiotic properties and it
> would be utterly irrelevant to the fact that penicillin has antibiotic
> properties. Science just doesn't care.

Except perhaps as regards the probability/hope for another random event in
chaos that produces another antibiotic by happy accident.

> Certainly, except that science is not a belief system.

Sure it is- gambling that if you roll the dice a zillion times, you'll get a
frog.
good plan.

> ID has no proof. It proposes nothing, tests nothing, and does
> research on nothing.

Mostly, it doesn't recognize your question.
It deems the answer to be self-evident.
Look at the approach used in the Declaration of Independence- the 'truths'
that are 'self-evident'. Nothing about jesus, nothing about genesis, nothing
about whether you can play with someone else's weenie or eat shellfish.

> See, and that's why religion shouldn't pretend to be science, and vice
> versa. Why *shouldn't* science abdicate the question?

It should-
the whole question between 'intelligent design' and 'random chance' doesn't
occupy much time really- and has little to do with the operation of physics
or astronomy or whatever.

>>I see the spark of intelligence as defining the difference between
>>hominids
>>and not-hominids. There is also a Biblical perspective that not all
>>hominids
>>are 'sons of God', so that further limits what 'human' may mean.
> See, and this is why evolution may or may not be consistent with
> Genesis. The Christians can't even figure out what it means. Is it
> literal? Is it allegory? A mix? And are we looking at creation from
> Genesis 1:1 or 2:4?

nothing to do with 'Intelligent Design'-
maybe you'd be more comfortable with 'prima mobile'/First Cause/'Nature's
God- something like that.
Nothing to do with the jewish story.

Chas


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Would you stop for a moment?!
    ... However neither are *necessary* for existence to exist. ... The Xtians drive a stake in and say;heres' God, and the Bible is the explanation: start from there and it all makes sense'. ... An inference drawn from a a particular worldview, but that worldview is not absolute: A worldview that places a stake in the ground, calls it 'PHYSICAL reality', and makes its existence the most basic thing there is. ... Essentially from this point of Christianity and the Semitic religions are actually the foundation of material realism ans Western science. ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... i am pointing out beliefs of religions that are types of beliefs ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... the laws of physics to be what they are, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... to be the *factually* inerrant word of God. ... "literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. ... be factual by supposition and not by evidence. ... as is the case with Dr. Miller. ...
    (talk.origins)