Chimps are very intelligent.They can think abstractly,problem solve,use tools,and have a considerable vocab in chimp language.They do not have the vocal chord structure to master human sounds.Like humans they can be very loving,compassionate but also murderous creatures that will attack another troop of Chimps and wipe them out in territorial conflicts.Sound a bit familiar?

Philo speaks about the spirituality of the mind,it was our superior mind that achieved this spirituality.Where is the spirit after 50yrs of marriage,a spouse no longer recogises their partener due to Alhziemers.Now this spouse can still function in other areas to maintain survival.What sort of god would take the last and most precious things of two old people;their memories and conscious interaction.

We are but one of many intelligent animals on this planet.Give them the chance to move beyond survival mode as we have done and intelligence will develop.Other creatures can do amazing things in a protected domestic environment.

We have not advanced enough to grasp the Universe or our place in it,let alone explore another dimension to our being we have no way of sensing or measuring.If there be a spiritual self,show us the evidence.Religions have achieved good and bad outcomes for humanity,yet the concept of us having a special relationship with the "intelligent designer" is very narsissistic.

In evolutionary terms we've been on this planet but a few seconds and seem to think we know so much and are so special.

Paul B
I would think that ID becomes more than philosophy, but a mixture of philosophy (or morality) and technology (or science).

Comparing a tree to a blade of grass, then the blade of grass is rather small. To a forest, then a single tree is rather small. To a continent, then the forest is rather small. To a planet, then a continent is rather small. To a solar system, then the planet is rather small. To a galaxy, then a solar system is rather small. To a current universe, then a galaxy is rather small. And if multiple universes do occur, then our current universe is rather small.

All depends on perspective, but if someone had the technology that could significantly change life on this planet (eg alter the weather, change the ocean currents etc) then this could significantly change the type of life on this planet.

Is this technology available to do this? That would depend on perspective, as to what technology we have now, compared to what technology and knowledge we could have in future years. But it is now known that the weather can be changed, through altering the ionic structure of the atmosphere

To all our atheist friends who are leaving this thread- Goodbye!

More ideas of design and structure have been learnt by observation of natural reality than theorising about how it got here. The research into the intelligence of the application of structural design in nature has contributed more to humanity than the history of evolution. I am currently working with the application of structural design in building engineering. Most of it learned from principles of design within nature. There is intelligent design in nature we are just now realising.

Philo,
are you suggesting that because one does not believe in Creation or ID, one is an atheist? That would be wrong...

We can be sure of the reality that the world exists. We can be sure of the reality that we exist. We can be sure of the reality that nothing in this world can account for its own existence, birth or structure; therefore either the world has an absolute ground and cause, so consequently it is conceivable in the light of reason. Or else the world has no absolute ground and cause, and we must be satisfied with ascertaining the existence of the reality that is there, without “sufficient reason”.
We are confronted with at least four types of metaphysics.
The tradition of the Upanishands and Spinoza recognises the Absolute as the foundation of reality but denies the transcendence and creative freedom of the Absolute.
Judeo/Christian acknowledges the Absolute as the ground and cause of objective reality but conceives of the Absolute as a benevolent and personal being.
The third denies the Absolute entirely, maintaining that we must be content with our knowledge of the contingent.
Fourthly - pantheism. Pantheistic metaphysics can be refuted if the witness and teaching of objective experience is accepted and taken seriously. Pantheism is based upon nothing ascertainable or verifiable.
Reality it seems is incapable of accounting for its own existence, structure, development and beauty, and because nothing in this world can account for its own existence, birth or structure, does it then follow that there is something or someone that is responsible for this existence, structure, or evolution.
However, any argument which shuns the very ideas of an absolute foundation of sensible reality is difficult to vanquish. The whole question of human reason is in question. Can human reason go all the way in its demand for intelligibility? Must it abandon the quest for an absolute foundation, which Leibnitz called “sufficient reason”? Must it limit itself to ascertainment of the fact of perceptible reality, structure, evolution and splendour, and make no attempt to seek intelligible ground and cause of that reality? Is this quest for ultimate intelligibility of the world and how it organises itself, eg: ID, the ultimate illusion?

If there be a god or supernatural spiritual self,it is as illusive as quick silver.We have the reality of survival of the fittest.It was human intelligence and technology that freed us from the shackles of mere hunters and gatherers.This gave birth to our modern civilisation of more time to learn and contemplate our navels.
Without this technology we would not have the time to reach our present stage of consciousness.We therefore cannot have notions of spirituality without the mechanisms of capitalist wealth creation that provides time for such indulgences.

As I've alluded to previously,if we knew for certain about our limited mortality or possible eternal immortality,there would be no point to living,since the answer would pose no challenge for us to confront life's contradictions and injustices.

The traditional religions have to evolve beyond the dogma of their limited scriptures in the light of both scientific discovery and the insight of the great philosophers.