The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Intelligent design: scientifically and religiously bankrupt > Comments

Intelligent design: scientifically and religiously bankrupt : Comments

By Michael Zimmerman, published 14/5/2010

From both a scientific and a religious perspective, intelligent design is dead and buried.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 55
  10. 56
  11. 57
  12. All
mhaze,

<<Maybe the intelligent designer intelligently designed us to be flawed?>>

Considering some of the flaws in found in different species, the alleged intelligent designer would have to be a pretty malevolent designer.

<<Otherwise if we were perfect then we'd be the equivilent of the designer. After all if there were such a designer then its intelligence would far surpass ours and therefore us assuming we know how such a being would think is the equivient of an ant assuming it knows how we think.>>

But we still have big enough brains (well, some of us anyway) to see malevolence and just plain carelessness when we see it. Not to mention blatant deceit when everything about the various life forms on Earth adhere perfectly to evolution.

<<Equally Darwinism is an isue of faith that can be neither proven nor disproven - well at least not proven scientifically.>>

Wrong.

The overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution, and the total absence of any contradicting evidence puts evolution well beyond any reasonable doubt.

<<To my knowledge no one has managed to observe the creation of a new species so the view that they are created naturally is mere assumption, not science.>>

And if they did, it would disprove evolution.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 14 May 2010 4:35:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I were to say that every sheep on a large farm was white, I could only prove this by checking every single sheep, and then show that there were no sheep hiding.

To disprove this I need only find one black sheep.

This would be similar to evolution, here millions of "sheep" have all turned up white, but there in the absence of having absolutely all possible evidence, there will never be absolute proof.

The creationists in spite of many "academics" have yet to find a single "non white sheep"

However, to equate belief in evolution to a belief in creation, is as absurd as buying a lotto ticket and believing that the chance of winning the jackpot is the same as not winning.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 14 May 2010 4:40:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And so the author is either very ignorant or believes in unintelligent design. Then again both these positions can only happen when you twist your observances and are blinded by dogma as evolutionist tend to do. Keep trying guys it won't change the fact that we are all answerable to our Creator. The anti intellectual view is no better demonstrated by those foolish or ignorant enough to believe we got her by chance. To call this science is laughable.
Posted by runner, Friday, 14 May 2010 6:23:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wondering when you'd turn up runner ... but is that all you can come up with?

There are many things that science is not certain about, runner. One thing is certain though, you haven't a clue what science is, or what it is not.

Science is certainly not a faith based religion premised on dogma, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Btw, I couldn't help but chuckle over your Freudian slip.

Over to you :)
Posted by qanda, Friday, 14 May 2010 6:56:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a progressive, I can’t believe in the Big Bang Theory.
It relies on three major assumptions:
The universe is homogeneous,
The universe is isotropic
Physical laws are universal

Demolishing these assumptions –

The universe is homogeneous
BUT
Diversity is good and homogeneity is bad.
Therefore, no progressive intelligent designer would have designed a homogeneous universe.

The universe is isotropic
BUT
Isotropy is just multi-directional homogeneity. Refer above.

Physical laws are universal
BUT
In a progressive universe you would expect a diversity of laws.
Therefore, no progressive intelligent designer would have applied the same physical laws throughout the universe, which, as we’ve already proven above, is diverse.
Posted by Proxy, Friday, 14 May 2010 8:45:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

you might like to consider the proposition that ID is bad theology -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/03/religion-atheism
.
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 15 May 2010 7:53:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 55
  10. 56
  11. 57
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy