Comments on: Intelligent Design?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:39:22 +0000

ID is most often and wrongly linked to God and creationism, as opposed to Darwinism and evolutionism. We are there in fact facing an old philosophical problem transposed this time from man to the universe: the difficult and even impossible distinction between what is innate and what is acquired. But the reader of my pages http://controlled-hominization.com/ will perhaps agree that evolutionism is not in contradiction with all forms of ID. As a materialist, I think that the confrontation between both concepts is sterile and that a synthesis is even possible.
If any great complexity of a feature could not exclude evolutionism, science itself could not reject some forms of ID in the evolution of the universe, at least in some steps of the process. After all, man himself is already a local actor in this evolution, an actor showing little intelligence so far (global warming, life sciences …). He could however be led to play a greater and nobler part if he succeeds to survive long enough (dissemination of life in the cosmos, “terraforming” of planets, planetary and even stellar formation, artificial beings…). The development of this kind of “draft ID” could only be limited by our refusal to do so and by our ability to survive. We would be viewed as gods by our ancestors from the middle Ages, and we would also view our descendants as gods if we could return in a few hundreds or thousands years.
By his refusal to consider that intelligence could already have played a significant part in the evolution of this universe, man takes in fact for granted that he is the most advanced being. It is in fact just another way for placing himself once again in the middle of everything, as for the Earth before Galileo. This anthropocentric view is not very rational.
Within the frame of evolutionism, the concept of ID could however be applied to the future man if he manages to survive long enough to be able to play a significant part in the evolution of this solar system, in the galaxy, and why not more. And it could also apply to eventual advanced ET preceding man in this cosmic part, advanced ET who could for instance, thanks to their science, have already played a significant part, even if they were themselves born from random processes.
Without going back to a controversial God, pure intelligence born from random processes is so far too easily ignored in the evolution of this universe, and I think that this choice has more to do with faith in man’s solitude in the universe than with true science. Even if it appears later that the ID concept has yet never been used by other beings in this universe, what could prevent man from applying it in the future? As with the Big Bang, ID would certainly remain in the field of hypotheses, but science progresses that way, and it would not be scientific to exclude one hypothesis that could be quite credible. ID is too easily discarded and laughed at, somewhat like continental drift not long ago, and a lot of other concepts too.
Benoit Lebon

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 28 May 2007 01:13:55 +0000

Part of the problem is that ID is always presented from the Judeo-Christian perspective of being hostile to Darwinian evolution. It is never considered, by opponents or proponents, from the perspective of faiths such as Buddhism or Pandeism, which do not quibble with the role of evolution even in a God-made universe. Pandeism even has as one of its tenets that whatever science reveals as the mechanism of life, that is the means God designed to make life.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:42:42 +0000

Basic logic: You can prove that something exists by showing the object directly or showing indirect evidence. As a corollary, you cannot prove that something does not exists.

For evoution there is evidence.
For God there are stories but no evidence.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:07:05 +0000

You can falsify evolution. You could show up tomorrow with evidence and a theory to explain it, and the entire thing could be thrown in the trash.

Please tell me how you disprove creationism? What proof would falsify the existence of God?

Science is not religion.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:36:13 +0000

“You mean only your religion, right?”

No, that IS NOT what I said. I said that if they teach one religion, then they should teach others. Notice that I said others, not MINE. I’m by no means a Bush supporter, however, there is much scientific facts out there that suggest an intelligent design just the same as there are scientific facts out there that suggest evolution.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:30:47 +0000

I agree 100% with the above post. I believe that the above post puts all religions including Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Christianity, evolution and Jainism in the right context.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:27:30 +0000

Evolution is, though. I could use science to advance my religion (which is not evolution). However, if I did that, within the public school system, I’d be in court. The religion of evolution gets a free pass, however.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:25:16 +0000

If religion is not to be taught in public school, I’d be fine with that decision as long as the ban included ALL religion - even evolution.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:34:57 +0000

If Bush were to be consistent he would also favor the teaching of all religions at all churches.

That would also be good for ending the religion monopolies.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:09:55 +0000

“then they should teach about other religions as well.”

You mean only your religion, right?

Or are you proposing that scientist do research to select the one religion that actually represent God from among the thousands that have been invented to represent the thousands of invented Gods?

After all there can only be one true God. The question is which one?

Of course, it is your God, the one you selected before you could read and write, with the help of your parents.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:55:23 +0000

“Ever hear of what the Communists did?”

Yes, Stalin terrorized his country for many years.

Hear what the capitalists did?
Hitler terrorized his country for many years.

Hear what the christians did?
The Inquisition terrorized Span for many years.

Hear what the record companies did?
They invented payola and sold rap.

Hear what the scientists did?
They created the atom bomb.

Hear what the teachers did?
They taught that Washington liberated his country when in fact he was a slave owner and trader.

Hear what the legislators did?
The passed the copyright laws.

Now the mostly good guys…..

Hear what the workers did?
They did the work.

Hear what the musicians and arists did?
They made music and art works.

What does it all mean?
Absolutely nothing.

Only idividual persons are good or bad.

Only prejudiced individuals attach properties (good or bad) to groups of people.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:04:00 +0000

You need to learn the difference between science and faith. And if you want to teach believe science is just like religion you’d of course have no objection to having a scientist attend every church sunday school to teach children about evolution.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:05:20 +0000

Right…. Every theory and religion can be said to have holes in it and that also includes evelution. So why should the religion of evolution be taught and other religions not?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:02:16 +0000

The Supreme Being interferes only enough to keep mankind from destroying itself. The Supreme Being is allowing mankind to lear its lesson. That is the way I belive. I have no problem with evolutionists practicing their faith. I do, however, have a problem with the religion of evolution being foisted on my children without critical facts being brought up. If schools force kids to learn about the religion of evolution, then they should teach about other religions as well.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:56:45 +0000

“Please read some history about religions first. Religious leaders, history teaches us, are the most oppresive things that ever existed and the ones that least tolerated diversity. Remeber the inquisition? They only indoctrinated and tortured. Vey typical of religions”

The same has occured by the practicers of the religion of volution. Ever hear of what the Communists did? Most commies are devout evolutionists who go after practicers of other religions. Look at Red China. Look at the Khemer Rouge.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:30:25 +0000

“is the fact that people refuse to obey the commandments”

Let me see if I undesrand:
The world is a mess because people refuse to obey the commandments. I assume you are talking about the 10 big ones. Then the design was not so intelligent after all, if the results are a mess, meaning that the design was flawed and didn’t work out.

Perhaps a better design could have been made: Eternal hapiness for everyone in exchange of nothing, including obedience, money or worship. Now that is a perfect design.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:17:50 +0000

Same here, I went to boarding school in the UK. We had hymns in the morning, said grace at meals, were forced to go to church on sundays and to donate money to the church out of our own allowance.

Fortunately everyone bar 2 people were smart enough in my year not to continue Religious Education (RE) as an examination option so it was dropped from age 14 onwards, however we were still required to go to church and sing hymns in the the morning.

Wonder if we could use our government for trying to brainwash us?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:50:53 +0000

“Once again people like you really do not want to promote diversity.”

People like me? Please read some history about religions first. Religious leaders, history teaches us, are the most oppresive things that ever existed and the ones that least tolerated diversity. Remeber the inquisition? They only indoctrinated and tortured. Vey typical of religions. You want more of the same?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:37:07 +0000

science is not a religion.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:24:41 +0000

Even the theory that George Washington was a great man has holes,,, he was actually a slave trader and over 200 slaves when he died. The same for Thomas Jefferson. That is a really big hole.

Obviously that is no reason for not teaching about the American revoluton at schools, else no history could be taught.