Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Intelligent Design / Creationism
Thread: Intelligent Design / Creationism This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT»
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
posted February 16, 2012 03:37 PM
Edited by Drakon-Deus at 15:39, 16 Feb 2012.

@Zenofex

Exactly. One man or woman should not be judged based solely on his/her faith or lack thereof.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis


Promising
Supreme Hero
posted February 16, 2012 04:00 PM
Edited by Shyranis at 16:15, 16 Feb 2012.

Quote:
@Shyranis
Quote:
(meaning, [ID] is a viewpoint that fits snugly with the ideas in the theory of evolution and is not incompatible with it)

Surely you jest.  ID is about as incompatible with the Theory (and Facts) of Evolution as oil is with water.


I'm talking about as a belief, not a scientific theory.

Much like Doomforge said, a belief that an intelligent, unknown source started the ball rolling on all of the things we do not know about yet.

1: ID is not science, it is belief. You can use those belief to enhance or influence your own perception at any given moment of a scientific principle.

2: ID is not incompatible because it is typically used to explain the part that happened that we are not able to explain yet. ID isn't strictly Christian Creationism, it's a generalist term that can mean intelligence created us by any belief system (Wizzards!). It really shouldn't be in conflict with evolution because ID is generalistic enough that can envelop evolutionary theory and use it as the method used by whatever intelligence those that espouse ID believe in.

But as I said, it's something to be taught in the home, not in school.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Seraphim
Seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted February 16, 2012 08:13 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6AdEDm2mLQ

This video sums up what I think about intelligent design.

There are no scientific arguments for ID.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 16, 2012 08:37 PM
Edited by Corribus at 20:41, 16 Feb 2012.

@Shyranis
Quote:
I'm talking about as a belief, not a scientific theory.

Doesn't matter - they're not compatible.  You can't believe in both.  One specifies that today's life forms evolved from other life forms over a long, gradual process of mutation and natural selection.  The other specifies that today's life forms were put here as they are now by an intelligent designer, and that aspects of today's life forms are too complex to be explained by evolutionary principles.  How are those in any way compatible or complimentary beliefs?

Quote:
Much like Doomforge said, a belief that an intelligent, unknown source started the ball rolling on all of the things we do not know about yet.

Yeah, that's fine and all, but it's not ID.

Quote:
2: ID is not incompatible because it is typically used to explain the part that happened that we are not able to explain yet.

No it isn't. ID is an outright rejection of the scientific theory of evolution, an explanation that has been formulated to explain an overwhelmingly large body of evidence assembled by thousands of independent scientists over the hundred (and more) years.  I'd even go so far as to say it's an outright rejection of the scientific method.  ID is not an attempt to "fill in the gaps" of evolution.  It's a replacement/alternative for evolution, an attempt to explain, in a different way, the things evolution can already explain.

Quote:
It really shouldn't be in conflict with evolution because ID is generalistic enough that can envelop evolutionary theory and use it as the method used by whatever intelligence those that espouse ID believe in.

With all respect, Shyranis, you don't seem to understand what ID is.  Even the term Design in ID is in conflict with the principles of evolution.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted February 17, 2012 12:29 AM

Quote:
Doesn't matter - they're not compatible.  You can't believe in both.  One specifies that today's life forms evolved from other life forms over a long, gradual process of mutation and natural selection.  The other specifies that today's life forms were put here as they are now by an intelligent designer, and that aspects of today's life forms are too complex to be explained by evolutionary principles.  How are those in any way compatible or complimentary beliefs?

But see, that is only a single way ID is used. As Shy said, there are multiple interpretations of what the "Intelligent designer" actually did, some guesses would say that the ID being just blew something up (the Big Bang) and then minorly influenced things from that point on to bring about life as we know it today. Then there is what you described, which is the most extreme of the ID ideas. The level you are using also goes by another name, "Religion." Yes, Judaistic and other religions have the creation of everything instantly as part of their creation story, which is not the only way one can interpret ID.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 17, 2012 12:48 AM
Edited by Corribus at 00:50, 17 Feb 2012.

Design implies an intended endpoint - which, by itself, is incompatible with evolution, which has none.  One of the bases of Intelligent Design is irreducible complexity, the (wrong) idea that some structures in biology are too complex to have evolved on their own - the implication being that they had to have been designed ahead of time and deliberately put there.  

This does not leave room for the belief that some higher being just started the ball rolling and then left things alone.  Even philosophically it doesn't make sense - if the endpoint is already designed/determined a priori, then the topological surface that determines where the ball goes at every point along the way is also already specified, else there would be doubt as to whether the prefabricated endpoint could be achieved.  In which case there's no freedom for evolution from the very beginning.  In other words, it's fundamentally incompatible with the idea that someone started the ball rolling and let things go from there.  You can't have a predetermined design AND then let the system have freedom to evolve in a limitless way under its own power.  

The ONLY thing that ID does right is that it's built on a very specific set of assumptions and ideas.  Unfortunately, all of them are WRONG and completely unsubstantiated by any available scientific data, but the upswing is that there's not a lot of room for interpretation of what the whole thing means.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong - Certain interpretations of Christian theology and evolution can coexist harmoniously.  But ID and evolution cannot.  (Also, just to reiterate for the billionth time, evolution is not a theory of how life or the universe came into being - it's strictly a theory to explain the "observed diversity of life".)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted February 17, 2012 01:45 AM

Quote:
(Also, just to reiterate for the billionth time, evolution is not a theory of how life or the universe came into being - it's strictly a theory to explain the "observed diversity of life".)

I never claimed that it was an explanation for how life began, how did you get that impression?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 17, 2012 01:47 AM
Edited by Corribus at 01:49, 17 Feb 2012.

Quote:
As Shy said, there are multiple interpretations of what the "Intelligent designer" actually did, some guesses would say that the ID being just blew something up (the Big Bang) and then minorly influenced things from that point on to bring about life as we know it today.


...

Any case, not directed at you specifically.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted February 17, 2012 02:09 AM

@ Cor: But in there I didn't say anything about evolution, just how a person who believes in ID would fit it into a theory. I know that no matter how unlikely something might appear, even if it is downright impossible, that random chance does in fact work that way, and in an infinite and ever growing (wait, can it do that?) universe, the chances of those results coming about are, well, infinite. Therefore, this thing we call life most likely happened again and again under a variety of conditions they we would probably call impossible and flourished with just a few differences, and probably appeared in ways that we can't even think about, since they would be so foreign to us.

In other words, I do not believe in ID and I recognize that given an infinite space with an infinite amount of possibilities, life will develop not just once, but an infinite amount of times. (Woohoo, infinity!) That says nothing about my ideas of how matter and energy came to exist, but I recognize that life not only can develop on its own, but that once the conditions became right it most likely did with or without any "Influences."
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted February 17, 2012 04:09 AM
Edited by Elodin at 04:12, 17 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Design implies an intended endpoint - which, by itself, is incompatible with evolution, which has none.  


Theistic evolution was taught by Augustine and other Christians long before Darwin came along.  Agreed that atheistic evolution and "design" are not compatible since in that case there would no Designer. However, there is no reason why God in his foreknowledge could not have set the conditions exactly right to cause everything to evolve exactly as he wished it to or why he could not have intervened at various times in history to cause something to mutate exactly as he wished. Ect.

I don't have the time to repeat everything I said about theistic evolution in the "religious questions" thread but I'll like to an article I linked to in that thread from Christianity Today

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
shyranis
shyranis


Promising
Supreme Hero
posted February 17, 2012 07:28 AM

Quote:
just to reiterate for the billionth time, evolution is not a theory of how life or the universe came into being - it's strictly a theory to explain the "observed diversity of life"


Hence my belief that they are not incompatible.

Though, I can see how it might not be depending on the interpretation. Regardless, it doesn't even matter anyway.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted February 17, 2012 08:56 AM

Quote:
theistic evolution
There is no such thing as "theistic evolution", this collocation exists only in your head (there is no "atheistic evolution" either). Trying to synchronize the scientific results with some ideology, including religion, only corrupts the science and produces pseudo-scientific results at best (and pure nonsense much more often). I.e science is not supposed to be navigated towards some pre-defined goal other than to explore the universe as it is. If the result of the observations opposes the Bible, you just live with it, period.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted February 17, 2012 09:40 AM

Quote:
Darwin was a Christian, Gregor Mendel was a monk. Science and faith are not enemies.


Darwin "lost his faith", or at the least all faith in the organized lies.
Religion is the enemy of science when it refuses to accept that there is a reality out there, just as reality is the enemy of theory when there is more than just a few marginal errors.
Any organized lie is the enemy of mankind. The Church is one of them, for the most, except when its not.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 17, 2012 05:56 PM

Theistic evolution and atheistic evolution?  Will we next have theistic gravity and atheistic gravity?  Or maybe theistic relativity and atheistic relativity?

Perhaps theistic fluid dynamics?

Beyond that, it's true that some people before Darwin formulated theories to explain the diversity of life. (Though I don't see what the point is of specifying their respective religions - and in any case if you want to make a competition out of it, some non-Christian Greek and Roman philosophers [Lucretius, Empedocles] observed the diversity of life and posed very rudimentory explanations related to evolution before Christianity was even founded, and numerous Islamic scholars also developed primitive evolutionary concepts before end of the first millenium.) Nevertheless, few of these theories were in any way scientific, and the ones that were scientific were ultimately proven to be wrong by obtained evidence.  Lamarck's theory is probably the most notable example, and was indeed the first true evolutionary theory that supposed that live evolved naturally and life forms adapted to their environment; he postulated a "use makes strong" or "inheritance of acquired characteristics" view of trait formation, not too disimilar from character development in a lot of role-playing games.  Of course, this was later easily disproved by molecular genetics.

Elodin's contention that certain scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, posed evolution before Darwin may be true to some degree, but it's also unimportant - and really underscores Elodin's complete failure to understand really anything about the theory or its significance.  Darwin's genius was not in formulating a theory of evolution, but in formulating a theory of Natural Selection, and he WAS the first to develop this idea in rigorous scientific terms.  The theory is supported by everything we know about chemistry and molecular genetics, and there has not been found a single piece of evidence that contradicts the idea of natural selection.  Contrarily, Intelligent Design is not even the kind of thing that can be supported or contradicted by evidence, which is why it's inherently unscientific, why it's not supported by any accredited scientific body in the world, why it has been scorned by prominent scientists in just about every peer reviewed scientific journal, and why it has been deemed in federal courts to not be science and to be unconstitutional to teach to children in public schools.


____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
posted February 17, 2012 08:22 PM
Edited by Drakon-Deus at 20:25, 17 Feb 2012.

I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word, I believe  evolution is real because it happens all around us, but also in a designer.
But some people think modern Christians believe the world was created in literal six days (although there was no sun) and a few Christians believe that science hasn't progressed since Darwin's theory, now that's a problem...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Seraphim
Seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted February 26, 2012 03:17 AM
Edited by Corribus at 03:51, 26 Feb 2012.

MOD EDIT: You know the rules better than that.  The code of conduct applies to linked images just as much as it does to typed words.  Please don't do that again.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
GunFred
GunFred


Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
posted February 27, 2012 11:58 AM

Good points by Del Diablo in his two posts 11 days ago.

I just want to add...

Beauty of science: Science can change what we regards as "the truth" depending on what seems more likely to be true. Quite recently some scientists thought that they had discovered that the speed of light was not the fastest afterall, that Einstein was wrong at this point. This case seems to be a false alarm but if there had been enough supporting evidence then what was "the truth" could have been changed without anyone being called heretic or being burned at the stake.

Religion: Theists 2K years ago thought they knew it all. Theists 1K years ago thought they knew it all. Theist today think they know it all. Some modern theists today try to incorporate science into their religion but a few hundred years ago these people would be heretics even if they claim to be the same religion. Clearly theists during history do not stick to their stories much. Lying people who do not stick to their stories usually get caught right away and so should theists. If theists were not right then, why would they now? Also, no religion has more proof than any other religion so why would any particular relgion be true while others are not? I am confident that I could make up my own fake religion with just as much evidence of truth as any existing religion.

Short summary: Science try to get closer to "the thruth" with every discovery while religion merely change their story. Hope it is not a complete waste to post 11 days after the last shown post.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
posted February 27, 2012 02:22 PM
Edited by Drakon-Deus at 14:23, 27 Feb 2012.

Science progressing does not mean everything about religion is wrong or that religion just changes itself to be in accordance with science.

I'd love to go in space at least once in my entire life, but I won't say "There is no God in the heavens, told you so!" if you know what I mean...

Nothing to do with religion, but I wish people wouldn't have used science to create the atomic bomb, however that doesn't mean that we don't owe most of the little things that now we all take for granted to scientific discoveries (obviously...)

I agree that burning people at the stake and denouncing them as heretics for new ideas was terribly wrong.

Men who weren't exactly loving their neighbour did those things and of course paganisms like a literal everburning torture chamber could really lead a person to think that a little torture here is okay... wrong way to go.

Bottom line, for me at least, science and faith are not enemies.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shares
Shares


Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
posted February 27, 2012 02:34 PM

I'd just like to point out that religion is a wider concept than organized christianity, and that it is wider than just what can be applied to science context. Religion is not only a way to explain how the world works(science), but there are also organisations (for example the catholic church) and thus a way to run society (which has been executed a lot of times during the course of history) as well as being used as a moral guideline and arguement.
Science will only apply to the first of the three, and then can be used to enhance the latter two.

That as well as point out that we are drifting off topic.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted February 27, 2012 02:48 PM

@Zerox

Is it for school or something? Anyway, there are scientists that are on both sides of the argument here and some that are on neither. A few used to think "the finer science gets; the nearer to God you are."

If you really need this; it's been a while; but look up PHillip E. Johnson.  When I read about his thoughts before, he's was no Christian/Jew etc. but "sounded" like a fine scientist that advocated I.D.

My own 2 cents is we have created/altered about all within our reality, so the possiblity that the universe could hold a force greater than wonderful man is no big deal...or news...at all.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0785 seconds