Joined: 1-March 05
Member No.: 8,849
I've heard rants and raves about this subject on other forums, so I figured I'd bring the disease here. Please, though:
If you want to argue a point, don't turn this into a flame war. Seriously, just look at philosophy, facts, etc. NOT who has the better insults.
Just to make things clear: I'm for the Creation side of this, and yes I know, there's also an Intelligent Design part arising among scientists. However, I see this as a half-assed attempt to say 'We were created... but not by God.'
I put it in the polls, though, just in case.
So vote, then speak your piece!
Edited and added poll choices. March 25, 2011. ~Tombow
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
QUOTE(arche @ Jun 13 2005, 02:21 AM)
QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Jun 12 2005, 09:59 PM)
Intelligent design is such garbage. If creation is perfect, then explain homosexuality. Explain birth defects. Explain genetic differences.
I don't think perfection in the sense you describe is necessary. In fact, I don't really know how your criticism effects Intelligent design at all.
Perfection is a value that may or may not be defined in the way you are alluding. Perhaps you should define your concept of perfection first and determine whether that conception is absolute in some way so as to ascribe it to the Intelligent Designer. Then show that if perfection isn't present in the universe then an Intelligent Designer could not have created the universe. This still wouldn't be enough, but at least be a nice start.
Well, perhaps 'perfect' was the wrong word. But certainly a deity that planned every species to appear and act as they do would not have created such abberations. I have to disclaim that I have nothing at all against homosexuals, but there's no arguing that it's an anomaly for members of any species to not have a natural predisposition to procreate, if it was intended by the designer that all species were meant to 'be fruitful and multiply' ab infinitum.
I'm actually very much open to there having been some sort of original creative spark, so to speak, that was the work of a deity or deities... But again, to claim that we were molded by god to be as we are is vanity and ignorance of the worst kind.
QUOTE(Celestial Fangirl @ Jun 13 2005, 02:26 AM)
Evolution seems possible, but I just don't believe I came from an animal...Not because humans are better than animals, but because I'd like to know why primates are still alive then, if we evolve to survive.
Because evolution isn't linear. If you actually read up on the subject, you'd know that.
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Jun 12 2005, 10:32 PM)
Well, perhaps 'perfect' was the wrong word. But certainly a deity that planned every species to appear and act as they do would not have created such abberations.
This may not be possible based on the type of creation provided. These abberations may be part of the value of the design. I think that it may be a distinction between whether the designer is still interactive with the universe or not. If not, then it makes sense that there would be some abberations. Even small variations on any construction design causes some difficulties. So in a sense, it's the difference between theoretical ability for non-abberations and the actual "created" world.
QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Jun 12 2005, 10:32 PM)
But again, to claim that we were molded by god to be as we are is vanity and ignorance of the worst kind.
I don't see it as ignorance at all. I think that it's ignorant to claim the impossibility of God as a possible Intelligent Designer based on a false sense of "rationality".
Personally I think there's a mexican standoff between the two issues. I don't think that the explanation of evolution has met its requirements fully. The methodology for explanation is not satisfactory for me. I will still say that evolution is probably the best explanation currently available for all the evidence, but the best explanation is not enough to say that it is the correct explanation.
Also, it is rational to think that the world was created all at once by a God or Intelligent Designer. It's just not provable and offers no ability to really test either empirically or logically.
In order to accept any scientific explanation of past events, one must assume that laws and evidence viewed today are the same as in the past. There is still a reasonable possiblility that the laws we hold to today did not exist the way we think they did in the past. It's not even observable to test this, but simply assumed. One could say that it's ignorance to just assume such things and vanity to believe that we can just assume such things.
I would argue that what you believe as "rational" is not necessarily as rational as you think and offers no ability to make polar statements against Intelligent Design. I'm not saying that scientific thought is inappropriate, but I am saying that it is not able to fully determine metaphysics (or at least it's a different argument). Just because there is evolution doesn't mean that Intelligent Design is eliminated or irrational.