Lesson 14/16: Intelligent Design Part 2

If Intelligent Design really is legitimate science, then what can it tell us about the structure, function, and formational history of those complex structures we find in nature? Does teaching Intelligent Design really prepare our children for sucess in the natural sciences? If it does not, aren't we then purposefully hindering our kids by witholding from them the tools required to suceed in the scientific community?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation
• evolution
• intelligent
• design
• bible
• science
• faith
• gordon
• glover
• beyond
• firmament
• cyclone
• energy
• heat
• thermodynaics
• fiat
• divine
• providence
• teleology
• will
• agency
• newton
• principia
• laplace
• calculus
• creator
• God

[rmcgov00leeuedu]

to imply that teaching ID in any way inhibits scientific discovery is utterly and completely false. If you'll notice, it is always the creationists that have the burden of proof to examine the cell in all it's complexity, where are Darwinists try to make it appear as simple as possible in order to make abiogenisis feasible.

[glovergj]

I don't have to imply antything. I'm saying it outright. The fact that no new discoveries are coming out of I.D. speaks for itself.

[rmcgov00leeuedu]

You are deceived. It is the ID scientists that MUST look deeper into the human anatomy, because complexity always favors the ID side of the argument.

[glovergj]

Ok. Then there should be loads of research being produce by ID. Hmm... I wonder where it is....

"...because comlexity always favors the ID side of the argument."

This shows you have no? clue what you are talking about. Are you saying that a snowflake or a crystal are evidence of ID? And what exactly is the "ID side of the argument" anyway?

[rmcgov00leeuedu]

Actually, I do have a ? clue what I am talking about. A snowflake is not alive, - an invalid argument. The ID side of the argument is that the single minimal cell (the simplest form of life) has irreducible complexity composing of 60,000 protein molecules, that have to be in the right order or the cell isn't a cell. The odds of the assemblage occurring though chemical processes chance is 1 in 10 to the 4,478,296th power.

[glovergj]

Typical nonsense -- spitting out numbers that are meaningless. Such a bone-headed calculation assumes that all 60,000 protiens would have to appear randomly at the same time. Evolution posits no such things. People who generate these pointless numbers have no idea how evolution even works. Ireducible complexity is just another way of saying "we haven't figured that out yet". My laptop would seem irreducibly complex to somebody 100 years ago.

That's exactly why ID is worthless in the lab.

[Lioobayoyo]

@rafikgl

yeah that's true.

that's why the author of the video, i presume, stress the point that there is no questioning of the intelligent design or questioning any faith here.

but it doesn't help science, it is not science (in the modern sense). It doesn't lead to testable things, or fail if any. Hence it doesn't lead to predictions, or leads to false ones (depending on interpretation). It also lack objectivity (definition) So it doesn't help any field, especially biology, medecine, etc...

[circusOFprecision]

@glovergj

I want to agree with this. But it's presuppositionalism, and it is very limiting to the expansion of human understanding. We HAVE to stay within the current scientific paradigm because it is sooooo correct. No, dude, you gotta think deeper. Theistic evolution is alright, but it easily falls into the philosophical pitfalls of both materialistic philosophy and liberal biblical interpretation. How is that helpful when searching for truth?

[rafikgl]

@glovergj But somethings science admits are unexplainable by natural processes. for example the law of conservation of matter and energy states that they can not be created so we have to invoke supernatural creation and science has to be silent here.

[lardhat]

Excellent video!

Thanks, glovergj.

That's not you, is it?

[manutdfan4321]

great stuff gordon btw do you mind telling me what that song was at the begining

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Congratulations. You just contradicted yourself. I need no further proof that you are as foolish as the Pharisees you yourself decry. Good day, sir, and good riddance.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Paul's expectations are almost always about propriety and condemning those that are not orthodox. Philemon is a weird text for you to chose. Read it carefully. Paul is following the hebraic law concerning the return of runaway of slaves to their master and pleading that the christian slave be treated better (as more than just a slave) but there is no mention of emancipation or righteousness, just that Philemon owes Paul and is subordinate to him and he expects that to be honored.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik If you think Paul expects nothing in the way of actions, you've never read Philemon. Come to think of it, you've never seriously read most of his letters.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Exactly. The work showed the heart change. Works SHOW faith, they do not REPLACE it.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 The essentail point here is that i don't believe Jesus is divine, but I actually care more about what he said and did than you who claim to think he is god and claim to have a personal relationship with him. Frankly I think it is fear that turns you away from Jesus, You know his standards are high and you don't like the implication that your faith in him is not evident. That is why you turn to Paul hoping for the easy way out. Paul, like the pharisees demands nothing but doctrine.