I.D. is granted immunity from the rigorous standards of science. There are gaps in theories that scientists fill with research. And those same gaps are what creationists and intelligent design proponents fill with a divine being. They’re saying if you don’t understand something, just forget about it. Just say God did it. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. The best ID has to tell us is that an unknown thing did an unknown thing using unknown methods at an unknown time.
And, then there is the political agenda tied to the Intelligent Design movement. The ID movement does not like to talk about its political agenda. It does not like to talk about who funds the Discovery Institute and why. It does not like to talk about its close ties to political extremists like the Christian Reconstructionists.
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.. we need believing people." – Hitler
Their own statements tell the story: We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture. Local Pastor defending Dover School Board action to institute Intelligent Design in the local curriculum.
Ahhh, I can see it now.
“Good morning students, this is Intelligent Design 101, and we are meeting for the first day of class. My name is Mr. Nosezits and I’ll be your instructor for beginning I.D. during this semester. You may already be aware that this is a newly state mandated class and it is the first such class to be offered at this school, or any public school, anywhere, for that matter, and there will be a few changes from the norm that are in order.”
“First of all you will notice that this class is listed in the school curriculum directory along with all of the other science courses offered by the department under the heading of Natural Sciences. That heading will now be changed to Supernatural Sciences.”
“Now if you will turn with me in your text book to the beginning of Chapter 1, that’s page 5, ummm it’s right about in the middle of the book. Here you’ll find some explanations about some unusual thingies that just haven’t been considered unusual enough by the scientific mainstream to receive much attention. Due to this lack of attention they have not been thoroughly researched and the mechanisms for some of their construction or actions are not thoroughly explained. Now, since they have not yet been fully explained we may assume that they are irreducibly complex, and cannot be explained, and therefore are the product of some supernatural intelligent designer. Now this designer is something of which we know nothing and will never be able to know anything about.”
“OK now, so that’s it for I.D. 101. We’ll be meeting one more time at the end of the semester for finals. I look forward to seeing you again at that time and I am sure that if you can remember all of the material that we have covered here today in this class you will score well on your test. You may even decide that the rich and challenging field of Intelligent Design is something that you wish to devote your life’s work to even though all that can be known about the field is already apparent to us. Your one hope is that you might be able to siphon off some of the grant money going to legitimate research so that you can, in the great tradition of I.D., explain nothing. So, until the semester’s end, I wish you well. Keep looking for evidence of intelligent design, and I’ll see you at test time.”
MumOf4 Please explain extinction. "An intelligent designer would not create animals that could not survive. That would not be very intelligent, would it?"
At least the Hovinds are in jail, I feel safer.
2007-07-27 11:35:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by mindoversplatter 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
"If we are the products of an Intelligent Creator, then why would He give sharper hearing and better eyesite to such lower creatures than the creatures he allegedly created to worship him?"
1) Intelligent Design only says that life was created designed, not that it has kept every feature of the original design. Thus, humans might have once had better sensory abilities, but lost them due to genetic loss.
2) Because in every design, there are trade-offs. Just because a function is beneficial in one type of animal doesn't mean it would also be beneficial (for example, it might interfere with other functions or cause sensory overload) in humans as well.
3) Even if it was beneficial in humans, it might be too beneficial and might have lead to humans being, for example, too successful in hunting or reproduction.
2007-07-27 11:16:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Deof Movestofca 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
I'd think that the fact that there are no bats or cats or Ospreys with their own version of Yahoo Answers asking questions about how they were created would speak volumes.
We are superior. God gave to each what was required - bats have the hearing, hawks have the sight, we have the brains (at least some of us it seems).
2007-07-27 11:04:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by dswilborn 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Could bats, cats, or Osprey birds have typed the question? How about replied to it?
People who say intelligent design isn't intelligent tend not to be using theirs at the time. This has happened for many decades so don't feel bad. Many learned men have ridiculed animals for this and that. Now there is a department in the US Patent Office for natural patents. A database for things found in nature that inventors can use to develop their inventions like the shape of a shark for speed in subs.
2007-07-27 11:08:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by grnlow 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
The thought of God living in the clouds, slowly pacing back & forth with a walker, poor eye sight, poor hearing, and a bad memory is a bit amusing. Yelling at the young whippersnappers outside the pearly gates to get off his property before he releases the hounds.
2007-07-27 11:08:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dethklok 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bats, cats and ospreys need their heightened senses to survive.
While "survival of the fittest" would explain these phenomenon, ID would, too. An intelligent designer would not create animals that could not survive. That would not be very intelligent, would it?
You seem to be confusing "Intelligent Design" with Human Supremacy.
Added: ID is a scientific theorum. "Created in God's image" is an unrelated religious concept.
2007-07-27 11:06:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by MumOf5 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
This is because man has the advantage of having a rational intellect that animals do not, so it is made up for in the fact that animals in general have sharper senses, since sensing and sense processing are all that an animal has in the way of "thinking."
If you ask why any creature of that nature has a given level of this or that, they are finite and therefore must have limits somewhere.
.
2007-07-27 11:08:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
That is similar to asking why God did not design us with trunks, or with the ability to fly.
Certain animals have better "abilities" than humans just as humans have certain "abilities" that animals do not, such as the ability to create, reason and show emotion.
To state that just because we cannot hear as good as a bat, our design is not intelligent is extremely false and incorrect logic.
2007-07-27 11:06:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by TG 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
No, since we are made "in the image of God", we can assume that our Creator evolved like us and is far from perfect, like us.
Oh, I know, I am such a blasphemer! May God strike me down now for only relating truth.
2007-07-27 11:05:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mystine G 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
so far...you're the only example I've seen to cast doubt on intelligent design...
you forgot the dolphins' ability to swim, the oxs' weight bearing capabilities, yada yada
people were created with high capacity for intellect and memory, which enable us to have problem-solving advantages over other animals. ospreys NEED sharper vision to locate food and thus survive.
the image of God refers to our souls, reason, compassion, knowledge of right and wrong, etc.
LOL...valid?...which part?
2007-07-27 11:17:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋