Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's theory.

[Khayr]

My Definition of Humanism:

 

Human Well-Being is the Reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN.

 

Other Definitions of Humanism:

 

Humanism is a progressive lifestance that,

without supernaturalism

, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.

 

• American Humanist Association

 

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice.

Free of supernaturalism

, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values—be they religious, ethical, social, or political—have their source in human experience and culture.

Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.

 

• The Humanist Magazine

Reference Page

 

 

Deo volente, this will make things clearer for you.

 

 

In the future, JB, festina lente!

[Johnny B]

Bro Khayr,I´m glad that i´m not the 1st one to break the bad news on ya ,

but a recursive,and often seemingly unconscious pattern of recklessness.

and out of the scope behavior that you've shown in the course of this debate

missunderstanding burdensomely the point and revel in your own coarseness,

 

Khayr,isen´t it about time you pen down your point of view and convince the rabble

why ID/creationism is the correct theory and how an Intelligent Designer is behind it.

in so doing,you sure won´t be making Mary lonely.

If you don´t contribute but stick to selective quoting and beeing irrationally judgemental,

I for one am not gonna bother addressing you again.

 

Now,back to your defination,

we already know what Humanism is,it´s just so horrible to see you think, but have yet

deeply to understand it.

 

Originally posted by Khayr:

My Definition of Humanism:

Human Well-Being is the Reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN.

First, Humanism dosen´t beleive in creationism or supernaturalism.capisci?

second,Humanism doesn´t beleive in raison d'etre , Humanism is a progressive lifestance.capisci?

 

your dull defination of Humanism is based on these assumptions.

 

1: Human beeings ARE created.

2: Everything has a reason.

3: The raison d'etre of Human beeings is NOT to be well.

 

lastly,look at what your cut-rule looks like.

here is the reductio statement of your defination.

Human ill-beeing is the reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN.

 

Originally posted by Khayr:

In the future, JB, festina lente!

We know that 'making haste slowly' is not your motto, but what i don´t understand is

if this was a warning or a threatening directed at me?

or was it just to show me that you too know latin proverb but settled for a motto instead?

 

Now let us go back to the topic.

What triggered your erroneous defination was nothing less than your inability to distinguish

and grasp the diffrence between eudaimonia and Humanism.

take a look again:

 

Originally posted by Khayr:

quote:That is to say, human well-being (eudaimonia) is and should be the highest aim of moral thought and conduct.

In otherwords, HUMANISM!

Which in Islam would be considered SHIRK!

Why?

Human Well-Being is the Reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN. That is the goal and this goal contradicts every, revelation, every revealed religion.

Now,somebody get to bring forward the gist of ID theory and the rationale behind it.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Khayr:

Which way do you sway 50%+ of the time

RELIGION or SCIENCE???

 

What an odd question!

 

My answer would be neither. I believe in Islam -- the religion of Allah. I believe Allah is all knowing, always right and everything in this universe is of HIS. Science is discpline aimed at seeking knowledge. All knowledge in this universe is Allahs. Therefore, science is HIS. In my view there is really no distinction between science and religion - in this case Islam. But I must warn this is MY personal view, unshared by most of my co-religionists.

 

Scientism via Evolution which forms the foundation of Modern, PRO-PROGRESS thinking, does not believe in obeying PERMENANT, UNCHANGING LAWS i.e. RELGIOUS LAWS, DIVINE LAWS.

 

Science DOES believe in invariant natural laws! Where did you get the idea it doesn't :confused:

 

What Einstein and most people nowadays want, is CHANGING LAWS that succumb to people's WHIMS.

 

Once again, you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're saying. First, this discussion is not about Einstien and his believes. Second, he's dead. Third, in science there are nochaning laws.

 

This is what Evolution preaches,

constant CHANGE and non-Permenance!

 

Evolution theory doesn't 'preach,' it merely explains how we got to here as species. It doesn't say anything about constant 'change' or 'non-permenance.'

 

What have you been reading or have you read anything on the subject Evolution theory?

 

MAN IS THE CREATOR OF HIS OWN DESTINY

 

How is this relavent to subject at hand?

 

why a MUSLIM can not be PRO-SCIENTISM, PRO-EVOLUTION etc. b/c if you vouch for these IDEOLOGIES, THEN

WHAT IS TO SAY THAT

YOU WON'T view the SHARIA in the same light of EVOLUTION aka CONSTANT CHANGE.

 

Unbelievable! How do we get into discussing SHARIA in Evolution vs ID debate?

 

Sharia IS constant change, I suggest you go read up your Islamic history along with evolution theory. And start a separate thread about this subject, don't bring sharia and its constancy into this debate becuz you're only diverting it from its aim.

 

You are also 'SECULARIZING KNOWLEDGE' here b/c RELGION (A WAY OF LIFE) encompasses PRACTICAL matters in the daily life of BANI ADAM aka HUMANS.

 

But you don't believe that, if you did, you wouldn't be so anti-science.

 

I know which group you have chosen

then why ask me all these questions :confused:

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Paragon:

organisms or micro-organisms only 'evolve' to the point of 'adaptation', and after adaptation they seize to evolve.

 

Gotta disagree here. The driving force for the evolution of species is Natural Selection and not adaptation. If the environment is supportive of organisms biological needs, the organism won't 'evolve' any further. But say there is sudden environmental change in the organims niche, then that organism WILL evolve.

 

As NGONGE said, we should maybe consider macro and micro level of things and see their combination as compatible rather than conflicting.

 

There is really no meaningful distinction between micro and macro evolution. Macroevolution is the accumulation of many microevolutions. The mechanism for both is the same -- Natural Selection. Why bother splitting hair?

 

And as Johny Bravo pointed out, afterall, Darwin did not falsify the existence of divinity or God.

 

Of course no one can prove or falsify the existance of Allah

[Socod_badne]

JB,

 

I owe you a reply but I'm strapped for time now. Will get back soon.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

JB,

 

I owe you a reply but I'm strapped for time now. Will get back soon.

SB, skip it bro.

I´ve been observing, collecting the data and coining the theory, and voila i get my reply.

Reply(your point) is validated | evaluated and accepted.

[Baashi]

Time to let it go friends. Don't confuse yourself and others. The debate between Intelligent Design and Darwinism will go on. One side will always insist on that there is a Super Being, whatever you conceive him to be, that caused the universe to come to being.

 

The other side will keep admitting the fact that they don't know how, why, and who caused this universe to come to being but nevertheless they will insist on that they have evidence of how old this planet earth is and how life has evolved.

 

I could be mistaken but my understanding is that Darwinist implicitly unsuccessfully refute the idea that Super Omniscient God having hand in the design and creation of living organism. In essence, it boils down to whether Darwinists can furnish evidence that refutes Intelligent Design theory. From where I stand, and I don't pretend to be scientists, all the Darwinists have came up so far is turning tables to Intelligent Design proponents and demand evidence that supports Great God being the first cause.

 

By now the respondents to this thread have done little googling here and there, I hope, to at least have an idea the difference between Creationism (based on biblical beliefs) and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design proponents are scientists and they undercut Darwinist claims in two ways. First they challenge fossil evidences and the "gaps" of the so-called fossil chain. Secondly they ride on biochemistry and genetics in order to refute the Darwinists key and critical assertions. They do all this all the while they embrace the diversity of life and its evolving nature.

 

This is very interesting debate for the inquisitive minds. Questioning Darwinism is not tantamount to questioning science. This simple fact should sink in and from what I've read from your post you confusing these two issues here. Finally understanding scientific method and what it entails is crucial to get into this sort of debates. Every scientific question has its origins in a simple observation. Sometimes the researcher brings his/her own baggage to the lab focusing on or looking for specific results. Sometimes validating a hypothesis don't lend themselves into known methods and techniques.

 

The latter is very common and most learned fellaz strive to get to the bottom of it by keep looking, examining, and what not. The question of the origin of life is one of these difficult questions that folks have pondering throughout the ages. Darwin's theory is a starting point. But one must understand at the time of its conception it was merely an observation on the variety of life and plausible explanation of why that is the case. Today after century of scientific knowledge many have questioned the validity of Darwin's hypothesis. I hope you guys are open to listen and examine claims and evidences the challengers are bringing on to the table.

 

There are couple of good books on the subject. I can certify that the authors have challenged me to reexamine what I learned in my axyaa. Read the "righ"t material (from both sides of any subject) for more you read more knowledgeable you become. At least your horizons will widen lil bit more.

 

This post will not be complete if I don't share my newly found hobby. This I believe radio program. It is from NPR one of my fav radio stations (US). I was browsing the archives and I stumbled on one of my fav public figures in America. This guy is extremely intelligent as well as an influencial thinker. I happen to disagree with him on most of critical subjects of the age nevertheless I respect for his ability to articulate what he believes in eloquently. In general I like principled folks. This guy is a helluva principled man. Any how, he called in and shared his This I believe piece with the listening public. It just so happen that he addressed Belief in God somehow a related subject to this thread. This is the reason I came back and file my last post.

 

There u go Eilliam F. Buckley, Jr. on "How is it possible to believe in God?"

[Simply_I]

quote bashi:Secondly they ride on biochemistry and genetics in order to refute the Darwinists key and critical assertions. They do all this all the while they embrace the diversity of life and its evolving nature.

 

Yeah! I've heard this b4, but wait are you ppl debating whether evolution is the cause of our existence or ....or has been used by Allah in creation??....

 

Confusing darwin's idea states that inanimate elements in the periodic table joined up to form the cell (basic unit of life)due to atmospheric radiation etc...and then fish, monkey etc..puhhhh!!

Now the cell's design subxanallah is very complicated and some scientists argue that the above is not possible to take place.

How insulting yet they teach this in schools.

Some scientists of distinction in terms of knowledge know that evolution is baseless, but are not able to come out with it public bcos of political pressures.

 

Check harun yahyah's work about evolution could be enlightening.

 

http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php

[Johnny B]

Bashi my beloved Graad,

For once i thought you meant it when you earlier said "this was a layman´s type of cake",now i´m confident that your issues with Darwin´s Evolution theory is nill, but you just can´t let the ID cup of bloody marry you been drinking look empty becouse of it.

Garaad, you´ve almost repeated yourself when you said:

I could be mistaken but my understanding is that Darwinist implicitly unsuccessfully refute the idea that Super Omniscient God having hand in the design and creation of living organism. In essence, it boils down to whether Darwinists can furnish evidence that refutes Intelligent Design theory. From where I stand, and I don't pretend to be scientists,

all the Darwinists have came up so far is turning tables to Intelligent Design proponents and demand evidence that supports Great God being the first cause.

This repeatation of yours is counterfeited need of whatissoever your mind is crying for.

Again i´m tempted to tell you "Garaad,let us sift the assumptions first" becouse you seem to be despairing ,that the Evolution Theory should act like a "Origin of life" Theory and thus refute ID/creationism.

Garaad once again The evolution theory doesn´t CARE about the existance or absence of an intelligent designer having finger or two in it.

This debate has demonstrated the unscientific-ness and the covert religious-ness of ID, and the lack of a culture of conscious democratic participation.

Garaad, the ONLY scientific about ID is it´s questioning of the proposed examples of irreducible complexity in the Evolution theory, and even that done on the wrong grounds.

They base their criticisms on the motives of the proponents of Evolution Theory, which is a blatantly fallacious stand to take .

The Evolution theory itself is logically invulnerable to attacks on the motives of its proponents, and ID can NEVER be a blow to evolutive science

I.e. I hearby offer you and all ID supporters the explanations against examples of proposed irreducible complexity, and by extrapolating from very well-corroborated genetic data to show you that.

• the variously proposed items of irreducible complexity are in fact reproductively related and thus not independently designed, (unless the designer 'wants us to think that'!)
• If there are limits on the plasticity of genetic change these limits do not preclude the natural macro-evolutionary diversification of specieschanges from one species into another,Indeed, that it follows from the known nature of genetics that one must predict the diversification of species.

There you have your potted refuation of ID in a nutshell , and Yes i consider myself a scientist whatever that may mean to you

Anyone with a cencere hope to venture a responsible opinion can evaluate this.

 

Garaad ,I understand that Evolution Theory is perceived by many as a blow that directly goes agaist their religion,and a great evil , But i'd like to think that reasoned, evidence based on thought will prevail over blind faith.

 

Garaad the problem of creationism are many, worst beeing the following stance,

"we have the one truth/way/god/mantra/hakuna matata/spagetti monster. ' Follow us or die ".

I'm tempted into making the following impulsive reasoning:

1- Suppose that ID is the Correct theory. (even the bibilical creationism goes under ID)

2- Someone comes in, and asks, 'Okay, so there IS intelligence behind everything. So. Which intelligence is it?'

3- Someone says, 'God', someone else says, 'Allah', someone says 'The river spirit', and another belts out, One goes 'Hakuna matata','Spagetti monster!'.

4- The next 2000 years are spent in heated debate over wich God is the true god, true religion, and stuff.. They sink into the murky pit of tar they've created themselve.

5- Scientist, left alone in their corner, continue working virtually unbothered, every un-scientific ID attempt on their researches will be blocked by another fellow ID supporter of another faith.

 

Simply I,

Your source has been dealt with earlier in the debate, scroll on.

[Khayr]

'verbbaalissm' serving the illusion of thoughttt

R.G.

JB

Science neither disappears, nor will it deny you to be a beleiver.Science deleivers knowledge through the normal senses, knowledge implies a beleif, not the other way around

JB

Yes i consider myself a scientist whatever that may mean to you

Fair to say that- Science is content to ignore certain things as a result of its preoccupations, without formally denying them.

So all Science has to do is 'Raise Theories and call 'Observations' as 'Scientific facts' and whether they are disproven or not, that does not matter, what matters is the 'Theories' that have been formulated, to provide a 'counter argument' to something else. It merely offers a 'SUGGESTIVE' explanation and that is the one of the roles of 'SCIENCE'-to say provide 'SUGGESTIONS' that hopefully lead to 'Rethinking' aka DOUBT! Hence, an 'IMPLICIT DENIAL' of all that is 'OTHER' then 'SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION'.

 

The Evolution theory itself is logically invulnerable to attacks on the motives of its proponents, and ID can NEVER be a blow to evolutive science

I.e. I hearby offer you and all ID supporters the explanations against examples of proposed irreducible complexity, and by extrapolating from very well-corroborated genetic data to show you that.

 

the variously proposed items of irreducible complexity are in fact reproductively related and thus not independently designed, (unless the designer 'wants us to think that'!)

If there are limits on the plasticity of genetic change these limits do not preclude the natural macro-evolutionary diversification of specieschanges from one species into another,Indeed, that it follows from the known nature of genetics that one must predict the diversification of species.

JB,

 

This is not congruent with that you said earlier:

 

jb

If a naturalist, Atheist etc etc , fails to DISPROVE the idea(theory) of creationisim scientifically , He or she doesen´t necessarily proved the contrary.and that is PURE science

Darwin was aware of those difficulties that is why as pure natuaralist he presented that chapter and hoped for a brigher mind in future generations to shed ligh on it.

Evolution makes a 'suggestion' i.e. We come from a single organism and basis it on 'assumptions' that continue to have gaps in them but the 'fact' that darwin and his followers 'admit to these gaps', strengthen its agruments. Is that right JB?

 

Jb,

 

Why are the rules different for them? What one party can get away with all their suggestions and the other is held at 'pen point'?

 

 

JB

neither beleive in creationisim becouse it is based on the possibility of a supereme Intelligent Designer having designed it JUST so, nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like).

So your purpose in this 'debate' is then what:

 

• Debate for the sake of being heard

• Debate to oppose creationism

• Debate to oppose Naturalism via Evolution (which I don't see JB doing)

• Debate for the sake of being heard (again!)

 

To wrap it sxb , Evolution theory had survived a century old scientific challenge, while creation theory sentenced millions to death when they questioned it´s robustness.

In nuce-This is the biasnesses that you have been pushing all long. All under eo nomine Scienta!

 

 

Here is a syllogism for you since you are an avid fan of them:

 

• If Religion supports it, then it is wrong.

• Intelligent Design supports Relgion.

• Therefore, Intelligent Design is wrong.

 

Garaad the problem of creationism are many, worst beeing the following stance,

"we have the one truth/way/god/mantra/hakuna matata/spagetti monster. ' Follow us or die ".

Nothing is wrong with having 'DIFFERENT VIEW POINTS' as long as they share COMMON PRINCIPLES

i.e. GOD

 

Don't 'Scientists' have deffering 'THEORIES' but have common traits i.e. If it can be proven EMPRICALLY i.e. through 5 senses, then it is right.

 

JB

ID lays great stress on moral questions, but the morality ID and it´s religious theories preach is one of meek submission, of passive acceptance, and thus, of justification of existing social evils. This morality substitutes prayer and appeals for divine assistance for struggle and protest against social injustice. The entire Idealist philosophy is contrived, with deliberateness, to bolster the status quo.

Does this sum up your 'line of thought'

[Cara.]

Khayr,

 

Evolution makes a 'suggestion' i.e. We come from a single organism and basis it on 'assumptions' that continue to have gaps in them but the 'fact' that darwin and his followers 'admit to these gaps', strengthen its agruments. Is that right JB?

Not quite. Evolutionary Theory is a scientific theory. It makes predictions and posits relationships. Thus it can be falsified. Darwin specifically listed conditions under which evolutionary theory can be proven to be wrong. Irreducible complexity is one of them. So far, there is not one single case of irreducible complexity in nature. Not one. Incidentally, Darwin also listed other ways that the theory of evolution can be disproven: The gaps in the fossil records. In 1860s, there just weren't that many fossils, and Darwin pointed this out as a weakness of his theory. But today we have many, many more fossils that not only fill in the gaps, but that also create new ideas about how life evolved. But Creationists still cling to the "gaps in the fossil record" as a argument against Natural Selection, as if the last 150 did not happen. The truth is the Creationists could not attack the theory of evolution on a scientific basis, so they changed their tactics and renamed their stance Intelligent Design and came at science from the political front.

 

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It rests entirely on critiquing the theory of evolution, but its proponents don't come up with their own SCIENTIFIC explanation of how life originated. A theory which says to every inquiry "God did it", which does not yield results and does not list conditions under wich it can be tested, is not a scientific theory. End of story.

 

Just give one example of a situation where ID proponents would concede that ID has been falsified. Just one. You and I both know no such situation exists because those who push ID have unquestioning faith in its veracity.

[- Femme -]

And God said 'Be'. And thats the end of that debate as far as I'm concerned.

[Johnny B]

Khary, i´ve asked you to pen your point and defend ID instead of making selective quotations and a linearly answering to make a point ,if you wanted me to address you, but I see you haven´t done that , hence ,carried on with your usual, wonder if that is all you can contribute ?

Khayr, I´ve decided to appeal to your rataionle one last time and ask you to pen down a line ot two where you

 

emphasize ID and share with us why it is the correct theory

 

Now Bro Khayr, let me share with you some points in your linears where you unconciousely caused an unusual mirth , silently ofcourse .

Firstly, you can never question the motives and purpose of the participants of a debate, it´s fallacious, cowardly and

 

colossally barbaric, why? becouse:

1: Nobody knows 'or cares about ' your motive

2: You´re supposed to decipher other´s codes(motives) by understanding deeply the point the´re making.

3: It´s gigantically fallacious as it is an improper prerequisite , you can question one´s competence but never one´s motive to contribute.

 

Ofcourse i stand for every line i typed ,and beleive me i´m more concerned of you capability to understand my point , than i´m concerned of having erred , having a flaw or remotely beeing self-righteous.

Secondly, This

Why are the rules different for them? What one party can get away with all their suggestions and the other is

 

held at 'pen point'?

is the only valid , but unsound argument you made, so lemme answer it.

One could wonder what exactly is the injustice you´re protesting against when it´s obviousely apparent that ID is the correct theory becouse almost everybody beleives to be a creature?

On a serious note though, your argument is unsound becouse The evolution theory never got away with a single semi-leap, on the contrary , it´s one of the most evaluated|validated (turned and twisted)scientific theory in modren science,while ID (creationism) crusade after crusade produced and still produces an overwhelming preponderance of miracles over evil science.

 

Originally posted by Femme Fatale:

And God said 'Be'. And thats the end of that debate as far as I'm concerned.

That is excatly what was missing here , THANKS !!