Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. Science / History / Prophecy
  3. Science
  4. Evolution or Intelligent design ?

Evolution or Intelligent design ?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Science
150 Posts 28 Posters 7.7k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • O Offline
    O Offline
    one-9-one
    wrote on last edited by
    #89

    for me to judge a person's belief.

    interesting. can you explain.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S Offline
      S Offline
      Student_of_Allah
      wrote on last edited by
      #90

      Shalom Aleikhem,

      First of all, let me apologize for this late response.

      Now,

      No it doesn't, but my problem was how could God model life in a way that justifies racism?

      Evolution does not "justify" racism or even "universal brotherhood". It is up to you and me to decide what we do. Let me give you something else to think about. Do you agree that there are tall and short people ? Do you agree that some people are more attractive than others ? If you do agree that it is the case, would you now go on and and say that " but my problem was how could God create people in a way that justifies looking down upon the less desirable ones" ? I hope not. In the same way, even if we can demonstrate that I am weaker than you, we should not therefore say that you have the right to mistreat me. Like I said before, it is evidently true that shit and people are both made out of the same sub atomic particles. However, we know better than to treat people like shit.

      "favored races" is interchangeable with "white" in this context

      Once again, I have to remind you that "races" can very well mean variations. You said you have read "Origin of Species". Let me demonstrate that from Chapter 1

      ".................. Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil),....................."

      At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Darwin 1887156).

      Ok, here is the full passage

      "The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies?between the Tarsius and the other Lemurid? ?between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. "

      Although the passage is more about taxonomy, I can not help but point out that while defending his theory, he ignored things like genetics, nature VS nurture. His idea was that a culture can end up forcing extinction on another culture. Darwin had to explain what he observed, do yourself the favor of looking at the world he looked at. You will understand why some of his conclusions were not correct. By the way, Darwin was not proposing the extermination or ill-treatment of any race. He was, as I said before, describing what he observed. Just like I can write about a "Tiger vs Deer" situation without passing on any moral judgement on the matter. Now, I do not know if Darwin was a racist or not. However, even if Darwin comes back from his grave and states that " I am a racist and the theory of evolution made me racist", that has no bearing on the truth of the subject matter of "Evolution".

      Peace
      --------------- Student of Allah

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Offline
        S Offline
        Student_of_Allah
        wrote on last edited by
        #91

        Shalom Aleikhem,

        A reminder for everyone

        Let us have off-topic conversations and debates elsewhere. This thread is for discussing the theory of evolution and intelligent design.

        Peace
        ------------- Student of Allah

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • J Offline
          J Offline
          JewishDude
          wrote on last edited by
          #92

          Evolution or Intelligent design???

          Does it have to be either or?

          Can't the two go hand in hand?

          Just my crazy questions...
          JewishDude
          peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Offline
            S Offline
            StopS
            wrote on last edited by
            #93

            Evolution or Intelligent design???

            Does it have to be either or?

            Can't the two go hand in hand?

            Just my crazy questions...
            JewishDude
            peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace

            Sure. Why not have the flat Earth and the spherical Earth at the same time too?

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • J Offline
              J Offline
              JewishDude
              wrote on last edited by
              #94

              Hi Stops,

              The earth is locally flat and globally a sphere. It doesn't have to be either or. It is a matter of perspective. On the ground earth appears flat. From space the earth is a sphere. It also is based on your needs at the time. to build a house acounting for the curvature of the eath results in horrible calculations only to reach the same end result. but flying a plane across the earth it does make sense to do the calculations. i wonder if this debate is another science versus religion debate. From other threads they seem to go no where.

              Just some more crazy thoughts...
              JewishDude

              peace Salam, shalom peace peace

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • S Offline
                S Offline
                StopS
                wrote on last edited by
                #95

                Hi Stops,

                The earth is locally flat and globally a sphere. It doesn't have to be either or. It is a matter of perspective. On the ground earth appears flat. From space the earth is a sphere. It also is based on your needs at the time. to build a house acounting for the curvature of the eath results in horrible calculations only to reach the same end result. but flying a plane across the earth it does make sense to do the calculations. i wonder if this debate is another science versus religion debate. From other threads they seem to go no where.

                Just some more crazy thoughts...
                JewishDude

                peace Salam, shalom peace peace

                That is exactly my point. Just because some things are so stupendous and seem designed, they are not.
                It is a question of what is true. Is anything in ID true? No. Are there any verifiable claims? No. Are there and falsifiable claims? No. Has ANYTHING ever muttered by these nutters from the Liberty or whatever Institute turned out to be true?

                That's why I strictly split science and religion, as they have nothing in common, I agree with you.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Offline
                  S Offline
                  supportpeacenotwar
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #96

                  Hi Stops,

                  The earth is locally flat and globally a sphere. It doesn't have to be either or. It is a matter of perspective. On the ground earth appears flat. From space the earth is a sphere. It also is based on your needs at the time. to build a house acounting for the curvature of the eath results in horrible calculations only to reach the same end result. but flying a plane across the earth it does make sense to do the calculations. i wonder if this debate is another science versus religion debate. From other threads they seem to go no where.

                  Just some more crazy thoughts...
                  JewishDude

                  peace Salam, shalom peace peace

                  Peace,

                  Yes, very true. When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions...

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • Z Offline
                    Z Offline
                    Zulf
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #97

                    So I too will contribute with a post...

                    This whole conflict between evolution and creation seems to stem from the Christian dogma that Earth is only a few thousand years old and the woman was created from the rib of a man etc, and there are Christians of today that believe this. I watched a debate on BBC, I think it was, where one side represented science, and the other side represented creation. On both sides where people who believed in God, both Christians and Muslims, but atheists were of course only on the science side, needless to say. So, even among Christians and Muslims there were proponents of evolution... with the addition that they also believe in God. Things are not so black and white like many think or want it to be.

                    Especially atheists want it to be a black-and-white division.... while in reality it is not. Actually, there are two different spectra. On one axis we have 'atheist'-vs-'believer on God', and on the other we have 'open mind'-vs-'closed mind'. A person with a closed mind won't use reason, and would stick to his/her position for no other reason than because this is the standpoint strongly identified with, and hence unconditionally supported, no matter what. So, some people will claim to be open-minded, but will still disregard scientific evidence that e.g. Earth is very old, and not just a few thousand years.

                    If you believe in God, and if you claim to be open-minded to reality, then you cannot reject scientific evidence unless there are other scientific arguments for doing so.

                    Regarding the conflict between evolution and intelligent design... the conflict, or contradition, is imagined and artificial. Evolution must be accepted to the degree there is reliable evidence supporting it. Intelligent design can only be evaluated if we first define it clearly. If it falls into the category of un-provable through scientific tools, like the existance of God, then we should not pit it against something else in a competition just to see which one is correct. Childish.

                    Those who believe in a Creator that is not created, a Creator unlike creation/universe, a Creator not bound by time or creation/universe, then those believers in God would accept that WHATEVER is found by scientific methods, is simply more information about our universe and how things are. If evolution is there, then it is real and part of the universe. If you then believe in God, you would also believe in evolution... unless you are not interested in reality and wishes to just stick to what tradition and folklore tells you.

                    The endless debate God-vs-'no God' is utterly useless, futile and silly. And it disguises itself as many other types of debates, and the proponents on either side disguise themselves as many different things. It is one thing to debate Earth-is-damn-old vs Earth-is-not-old-at-all... and we can be objective about this.... using reason and observation and inference.... but debating God vs 'no God' is purely an exercise of Ego.... since it cannot be scientifically solved and agreed upon. Both sides should realize this and stop trying to convince the other side. Futile!!!

                    If we believe in God, we may believe e.g. than God has put evolution in action as part of the way things work and develop. We may believe that God is not subject to time, which means that all God's action and interventions upon this world may be built-in and preprogrammed.... because God is something that is not bound by time, time being part of creation. If you suddenly wake up to realize something and decide, out of free will, to pray for something, God can answer this NOW, even by having had it preprogrammed from the beginning of time. Remember, God is "outside" time. Past, now, future is only something that we experience.... and experience we are forced into when living in this world. As always, all debates and conflicts that are related to religion and God, arise from our limiting and faulty IMAGES of God. That's what we debate.... our IMAGES.

                    So, to say that intelligent design and evolution are contradictory, simply means we have an image of God that cannot accomodate evolution. If evolution is found to be real, we have to accept it. But whatever we discover, will never contradict the existance of God. Of course, some images of God may be very unreasonable and silly, and hence they may contradict the reality we discover through scientific means.... but then the problem is our image of God, not the concept of God as such. I wonder why atheists always let only the silly religious practices and images of God represent the whole concept of belief in God. It's like judging all christians by what some witch-burners have done in the past.

                    Peace all

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Offline
                      S Offline
                      StopS
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #98

                      Peace,

                      Yes, very true. When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions...

                      Sorry for my asking you this, but have you ever worked in a scientific field or branch?

                      Science is most critical of science. A scientist will get higher grants much quicker if s/he's able to prove another scientist and their theory wrong. Scientific findings are always and automatically falsifiable. Never static.

                      Religion is the opposite. It is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. It is not reproducible and not testable. It is based on faith and not facts. The fields are diametrically opposed. How would you suggest "bringing them together" - and why?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • S Offline
                        S Offline
                        StopS
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #99

                        So I too will contribute with a post...

                        This whole conflict between evolution and creation seems to stem from the Christian dogma that Earth is only a few thousand years old and the woman was created from the rib of a man etc, and there are Christians of today that believe this. I watched a debate on BBC, I think it was, where one side represented science, and the other side represented creation. On both sides where people who believed in God, both Christians and Muslims, but atheists were of course only on the science side, needless to say. So, even among Christians and Muslims there were proponents of evolution... with the addition that they also believe in God. Things are not so black and white like many think or want it to be.

                        Thank you, very nice and thoughtful summary.

                        Especially atheists want it to be a black-and-white division.... while in reality it is not. Actually, there are two different spectra. On one axis we have 'atheist'-vs-'believer on God', and on the other we have 'open mind'-vs-'closed mind'. A person with a closed mind won't use reason, and would stick to his/her position for no other reason than because this is the standpoint strongly identified with, and hence unconditionally supported, no matter what. So, some people will claim to be open-minded, but will still disregard scientific evidence that e.g. Earth is very old, and not just a few thousand years.

                        There is a slight misconception here atheists have nothing to do with science or scientists. Atheism is only a lack of a belief regarding all gods. Atheists do not WANT a division, just an acknowledgement of facts. They also don't form a group or faction with a commonality.

                        If you believe in God, and if you claim to be open-minded to reality, then you cannot reject scientific evidence unless there are other scientific arguments for doing so.

                        Regarding the conflict between evolution and intelligent design... the conflict, or contradition, is imagined and artificial. Evolution must be accepted to the degree there is reliable evidence supporting it. Intelligent design can only be evaluated if we first define it clearly. If it falls into the category of un-provable through scientific tools, like the existance of God, then we should not pit it against something else in a competition just to see which one is correct. Childish.

                        I don't quite understand why you see a conflict here. ID proponents make claims they can't prove. End of story. No conflict.

                        Those who believe in a Creator that is not created, a Creator unlike creation/universe, a Creator not bound by time or creation/universe, then those believers in God would accept that WHATEVER is found by scientific methods, is simply more information about our universe and how things are. If evolution is there, then it is real and part of the universe. If you then believe in God, you would also believe in evolution... unless you are not interested in reality and wishes to just stick to what tradition and folklore tells you.

                        The endless debate God-vs-'no God' is utterly useless, futile and silly. And it disguises itself as many other types of debates, and the proponents on either side disguise themselves as many different things. It is one thing to debate Earth-is-damn-old vs Earth-is-not-old-at-all... and we can be objective about this.... using reason and observation and inference.... but debating God vs 'no God' is purely an exercise of Ego.... since it cannot be scientifically solved and agreed upon. Both sides should realize this and stop trying to convince the other side. Futile!!!

                        If we believe in God, we may believe e.g. than God has put evolution in action as part of the way things work and develop. We may believe that God is not subject to time, which means that all God's action and interventions upon this world may be built-in and preprogrammed.... because God is something that is not bound by time, time being part of creation. If you suddenly wake up to realize something and decide, out of free will, to pray for something, God can answer this NOW, even by having had it preprogrammed from the beginning of time. Remember, God is "outside" time. Past, now, future is only something that we experience.... and experience we are forced into when living in this world. As always, all debates and conflicts that are related to religion and God, arise from our limiting and faulty IMAGES of God. That's what we debate.... our IMAGES.

                        So, to say that intelligent design and evolution are contradictory, simply means we have an image of God that cannot accomodate evolution. If evolution is found to be real, we have to accept it. But whatever we discover, will never contradict the existance of God. Of course, some images of God may be very unreasonable and silly, and hence they may contradict the reality we discover through scientific means.... but then the problem is our image of God, not the concept of God as such. I wonder why atheists always let only the silly religious practices and images of God represent the whole concept of belief in God. It's like judging all christians by what some witch-burners have done in the past.

                        Peace all

                        Thank you, well formulated. The idea of ID does not entail a god as such. They just make some wild assertions based on the Bible and add doubt and wild claims using populist vocabulary, so the simple minded part of the American population just follows, without any understanding.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • S Offline
                          S Offline
                          supportpeacenotwar
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #100

                          Sorry for my asking you this, but have you ever worked in a scientific field or branch?

                          Science is most critical of science. A scientist will get higher grants much quicker if s/he's able to prove another scientist and their theory wrong. Scientific findings are always and automatically falsifiable. Never static.

                          Religion is the opposite. It is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. It is not reproducible and not testable. It is based on faith and not facts. The fields are diametrically opposed. How would you suggest "bringing them together" - and why?

                          Salaam,

                          I haven't, no, but I was talking more about the "layman" perspective. Yes, science is constantly re-evaluating claims and new findings, including ones that may even contradict previous research, are also published as they emerge, from what I can tell.
                          I meant more that some outside the field can sometimes view science as though it is the only model or approach that can help us understand our world and human experience, at the expense of all other approaches. Hence, they completely reject religion and spirituality - which is fair enough if that's what works for them, but it does mean the discussion or debate pretty much ends there and then or goes round in circles.

                          In terms of bringing them together, I meant individuals outside the field who may be religious not completely rejecting things that are scientific simply because of the "divide" between science and religion. Similarly, in those debates, those who reject religion might be more open to the religious arguments and not simply dismiss them because they refer to things outside of the scientific field such as God, scripture, etc. My point as more focused on how a debate itself would not just go round in circles or reach an impasse. I guess I'm referring to people meeting each other half way.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • M Offline
                            M Offline
                            Man_of_Faith
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #101

                            Salaam zulf, really good post there! Highly philosophical.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • Z Offline
                              Z Offline
                              Zulf
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #102

                              There is a slight misconception here atheists have nothing to do with science or scientists. Atheism is only a lack of a belief regarding all gods. Atheists do not WANT a division, just an acknowledgement of facts. They also don't form a group or faction with a commonality.

                              Right. One should not equate 'atheist' with 'scientist' as they are two totally different things. A person can be both, or one, or neither of these. At the same time as we cannot generalize about atheists, it is likely that SOME do want a division, and SOME are not interested in aknowledgement of facts... but this goes for any "group", (even though it is often silly to talk about 'group&#039.

                              I don't quite understand why you see a conflict here. ID proponents make claims they can't prove. End of story. No conflict.

                              Right. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

                              Thank you, well formulated. The idea of ID does not entail a god as such. They just make some wild assertions based on the Bible and add doubt and wild claims using populist vocabulary, so the simple minded part of the American population just follows, without any understanding.

                              To be honest, I don't know squat about the proponents of ID, even though I have assumed they believe that the universe has been designed by a god. There are so many names, labels and denominations these days...

                              Kind regards

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • S Offline
                                S Offline
                                StopS
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #103

                                Salaam,

                                I haven't, no, but I was talking more about the "layman" perspective. Yes, science is constantly re-evaluating claims and new findings, including ones that may even contradict previous research, are also published as they emerge, from what I can tell.
                                I meant more that some outside the field can sometimes view science as though it is the only model or approach that can help us understand our world and human experience, at the expense of all other approaches. Hence, they completely reject religion and spirituality - which is fair enough if that's what works for them, but it does mean the discussion or debate pretty much ends there and then or goes round in circles.

                                In terms of bringing them together, I meant individuals outside the field who may be religious not completely rejecting things that are scientific simply because of the "divide" between science and religion. Similarly, in those debates, those who reject religion might be more open to the religious arguments and not simply dismiss them because they refer to things outside of the scientific field such as God, scripture, etc. My point as more focused on how a debate itself would not just go round in circles or reach an impasse. I guess I'm referring to people meeting each other half way.

                                Sorry, but I somehow fail to see the similarity is what you said earlier to what you are saying now.

                                "When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions..."

                                But whatever, let me clarify something

                                1. science does not work with claims, but evidence, facts and probabilities.
                                2. science is a tool, just like a hammer is a tool, to analyse and describe the NATURAL world.
                                3. science does not address religion or gods or ghosts or anything supernatural, so no, it does not reject anything.
                                4. science does not go around in circles because as anything better is shown, scientists follow the evidence
                                5. if you have a better suggestion of how to describe nature, every scientist will adopt this

                                I understand that you would like to see harmony and mutual understanding, which is great. It just does not work everywhere. Let's face it, you have intuition, estimation, hunches, etc as alternatives to scientific accuracy. If you prefer an aeroplane built on estimates you are welcome to use it, I prefer precision and accuracy.

                                I think you fail to see the problem. If you are a fish you will have problems surviving on the moon. You can't discuss this or debate this away. Religion is based on faith, science is based on facts. They don't mix. You can't charge a battery using prayer and you can't provide spiritual hope with a battery charger. You can't "bring together" religion and science. Why would you want to? A religious pilot will not start thinking about his religion when he has an engine failure but his check-lists and procedures. He or she will leave her religion outside the cockpit. The pilot has check-lists, the Imam has scripture. You can't swap them around or mix them.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  supportpeacenotwar
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #104

                                  Sorry, but I somehow fail to see the similarity is what you said earlier to what you are saying now.

                                  "When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions..."

                                  But whatever, let me clarify something

                                  1. science does not work with claims, but evidence, facts and probabilities.
                                  2. science is a tool, just like a hammer is a tool, to analyse and describe the NATURAL world.
                                  3. science does not address religion or gods or ghosts or anything supernatural, so no, it does not reject anything.
                                  4. science does not go around in circles because as anything better is shown, scientists follow the evidence
                                  5. if you have a better suggestion of how to describe nature, every scientist will adopt this

                                  I understand that you would like to see harmony and mutual understanding, which is great. It just does not work everywhere. Let's face it, you have intuition, estimation, hunches, etc as alternatives to scientific accuracy. If you prefer an aeroplane built on estimates you are welcome to use it, I prefer precision and accuracy.

                                  I think you fail to see the problem. If you are a fish you will have problems surviving on the moon. You can't discuss this or debate this away. Religion is based on faith, science is based on facts. They don't mix. You can't charge a battery using prayer and you can't provide spiritual hope with a battery charger. You can't "bring together" religion and science. Why would you want to? A religious pilot will not start thinking about his religion when he has an engine failure but his check-lists and procedures. He or she will leave her religion outside the cockpit. The pilot has check-lists, the Imam has scripture. You can't swap them around or mix them.

                                  Salaam,

                                  My original point was about the way debates or discussions between two sides play out. i.e. they can just end up going round in circles. That was the point that I was responding to in terms of what JewishDude said. I'm referring more to what is constructive in terms of debate and approaches of the people in that debate. Nothing really poignant just a general comment.

                                  In terms of the rest of your posts, 'claim' is just a popular term that is used. It's part of the outsider lingo whether accurate or not. You see it all the time in news articles and so on.

                                  I also never said that science would go around in circles. So I don't know where you got that from. I said a debate between two opposing sides would go round in circles. Not because of the arguments of one side either but because of both sides. I have been in my fair share of discussion that goes nowhere outside of this area as well, so it's not just this topic either.

                                  This is exactly what happened when you responded last time to a post of mine. Maybe I have not explained myself in a way that makes sense to you - I apologise - but I am referring to particular types of discussion not the area as a whole. In fact, I'm not interested in bringing science and religion together as a united whole. Both groups can do their own thing so to speak. My post was more an observation and general thought on the situation.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • S Offline
                                    S Offline
                                    Student_of_Allah
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #105

                                    Shalom Aleikhem,

                                    For those of you who do not know much about Intelligent Design (ID), please click here to read about it first.

                                    I find "intelligent design" to be this bizarre and dishonest idea that also insults our intelligence. Basically, when we come across something that we can not explain, what we do is study that phenomena/subject/whatever. That is science. What the proponents of ID does is that they declare that thing to be "so complex that only an agency of intelligence can cause that".

                                    Here is a situation I made up to demonstrate how detrimental such ideas can be for us

                                    You and I are ancient Greeks. We see lighting. I ask you what that is and you say that you don't know. Then I tell you that "omg !! powerful things coming from clouds..from heaven... it is so super complex... there must be an intelligent agency, Zeus.... Zeus must be the one that is throwing these at as". You play the scientist and tell me that "look buddy, we have no idea whats causing that to happen, let us study and see what that is before we jump to conclusions based on our lack of knowledge and ignorance".

                                    That is exactly why I am against proponents of ID. They have nothing to add to our knowledge and retards our progress.

                                    Peace
                                    ----------- Student of Allah

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • S Offline
                                      S Offline
                                      StopS
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #106

                                      Salaam,

                                      My original point was about the way debates or discussions between two sides play out. i.e. they can just end up going round in circles. That was the point that I was responding to in terms of what JewishDude said. I'm referring more to what is constructive in terms of debate and approaches of the people in that debate. Nothing really poignant just a general comment.

                                      In terms of the rest of your posts, 'claim' is just a popular term that is used. It's part of the outsider lingo whether accurate or not. You see it all the time in news articles and so on.

                                      I also never said that science would go around in circles. So I don't know where you got that from. I said a debate between two opposing sides would go round in circles. Not because of the arguments of one side either but because of both sides. I have been in my fair share of discussion that goes nowhere outside of this area as well, so it's not just this topic either.

                                      This is exactly what happened when you responded last time to a post of mine. Maybe I have not explained myself in a way that makes sense to you - I apologise - but I am referring to particular types of discussion not the area as a whole. In fact, I'm not interested in bringing science and religion together as a united whole. Both groups can do their own thing so to speak. My post was more an observation and general thought on the situation.

                                      I apologise for my misunderstanding what you said. Thank you for the clarification.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S Offline
                                        S Offline
                                        StopS
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #107

                                        Shalom Aleikhem,

                                        For those of you who do not know much about Intelligent Design (ID), please click here to read about it first.

                                        I find "intelligent design" to be this bizarre and dishonest idea that also insults our intelligence. Basically, when we come across something that we can not explain, what we do is study that phenomena/subject/whatever. That is science. What the proponents of ID does is that they declare that thing to be "so complex that only an agency of intelligence can cause that".

                                        Here is a situation I made up to demonstrate how detrimental such ideas can be for us

                                        You and I are ancient Greeks. We see lighting. I ask you what that is and you say that you don't know. Then I tell you that "omg !! powerful things coming from clouds..from heaven... it is so super complex... there must be an intelligent agency, Zeus.... Zeus must be the one that is throwing these at as". You play the scientist and tell me that "look buddy, we have no idea whats causing that to happen, let us study and see what that is before we jump to conclusions based on our lack of knowledge and ignorance".

                                        That is exactly why I am against proponents of ID. They have nothing to add to our knowledge and retards our progress.

                                        Peace
                                        ----------- Student of Allah

                                        Very nice summary in your last sentence there.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • N Offline
                                          N Offline
                                          Noon_waalqalami
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #108

                                          Peace,

                                          In biology the female body is default. Only if something happens will the male be formed out of the female default body.
                                          "He created the first being" Was the "first being" male or female? Was the mate male or female?

                                          According to Qur'an female was first then from her the spouse (i.e. her mate naturally was male).

                                          41 O you the humankind fear/be mindful yeh lord yours the one created you from nafsin/soul (f/s) one (f/s) and created min'h/from her/it zawjah/spouse hers/its and dispersed from them two men much of and women and fear yeh the god the one you asking with it and the wombs (i.e. blood relations) indeed the god he is over you watchful

                                          I find "intelligent design" to be this bizarre and dishonest idea that also insults our intelligence.

                                          I find evolution theory and their prepositions set forth thus far equally bizarre and clueless.
                                          If they mean things change over time, yes obvious -- where did adaptive code spring from?

                                          How DNA Copies Itself
                                          http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VefaI0LrgE

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Users