intelligent design

That most basic concept breaks down under scrutiny. So yeah, I reject it.

 

No it isn't. That argument is illogical, but I'm not a mathematician, so I don't know the right words to say to explain it.

Every single outcome has an equal likelihood. No outcome is "right" or a "pass" (as opposed to fail). We just exist in the actual outcome, not any of the near infinite other possibilities.

 

To me, Intelligent Design is an explanation to the expanded version of Irreducible Complexity. It says there is too much efficiency, too much function at extremely high levels of complexity to credit it all to chaos and random consequence.

I think microevolution (evolution within species) absolutely should be taught in life sciences. Regarding the origin of life, however, I want public schools to tell the truth -- We just don't know. If they want to offer the two opposing theories (Macroevolution and Intelligent Design), that's fine. But if you're going to offer one, I think it's only fair to offer the other, as neither are indisputable fact based on the evidence we currently have.

 

The Judeo/Christian God fits within the parameters of ID, but I wouldnt' say that ID singles out the God of the Bible. I would think Allah would fall in line as well, but that wouldn't be much of a shock, as Allah is largely based on the same traditions and history as the Judeo/Christian God.

The paganistic gods could easily fit within ID, as they're largely based upon nature anyway.

Hindu, Wicca, Asatru and even the Greco-Roman gods would probably be closer fits, as they tend to subscribe to some form of overseeing god (Zeus, et al), with lesser gods being subordinate to the supreme (when applicable).

 

You're no fun hasbeen. You're way too intelligent, articulate and civil. Shame!









I was kinda hoping you or Sly would answer my who wrote the Bible thread. That isn't a subversive attack. I'm genuinely curious about it (a subject I know almost nothing about).

 

So we are just a likely to find God in the end. Cool.

 

Evolution doesn't discount (a) God. It offers no evidence for or against a supreme being.

That's one of the reasons why I think ID is silly. I'm sure it can be rationalized otherwise, but it really exists as a competing theory to a theory that doesn't exclude a higher power. So it's essentially pointless.

 

There's a couple of threads going that are going to take some time and research to answer, and I don't have much of it to spare right now. I'll post answers as soon as I get a chance. Promise.

 

My understanding of macroevolution is such that if you follow it back far enough, it either runs out of answers or caps off with something so illogical it proves to be an even greater 'leap of faith' than belief in a supreme being. Perhaps my understanding is flawed.

 

I just wanted to drop in long enough to voice my strenuous - some may say downright zealous - objection to this. At least in a science class anyway.

That is all.