5 ms·

At least for the second point, that's because IDH is Creationism. It purports that somethings are irreducibly complex and must have been designed by a creator.

by likpok 18y ago

At least for the second point, that's because IDH is Creationism. It purports that somethings are irreducibly complex and must have been designed by a creator. Which is basically the same thing (scientifically) as Creationism.

electromagnetic 18y ago
Agreed. Personally I see ID as an insult to religion, 'God' created the universe yet apparently he has to interfere 14 billion years later to create mankind because we're just so special, making him just so incompetent and not a true supreme being. I mean why worship the supernatural if it's just not unbelievable. I mean at least the Greek and the Norse gods knew how to have fun!
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
ID == given any set of conditions, the cause of those conditions may be natural or an external agent (or a combination) ID presumes an external agent. Arguments for ID include complexity and the watch, etc. Application of ID may mostly be by religious people. But ID itself is just common sense. You make an observation -- have a perception. You acknowledge that you either 1) believe you understand everything about how that reality occurred, 2) believe you understand a little but one day will understand everything, 3) believe that agencies unknown to you created that perception and the true cause lies in another set of facts unknown to you. (eventually understandable or not) Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how ID theory looks to me. To make a factitious example, lizard people from the planet Xypton diverted an asteroid millions of years ago and killed the dinosaurs. The fall of the dinosaurs has an ID basis then. But I doubt we'll see a lot of lizard people churches anytime soon. It's just basic epistemology.
- MaysonL 18y ago
  Personally, I think that ID, like creationism, is blasphemous: it's calling God a liar.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  > But ID itself is just common sense. Hardly, rather, it is common ignorance. ID is creationism, plain and simple. Its primary premise that the universe is too complex to have been an accident and thus must have been created absurdly ignores that its chief objection must also be applied to this supposed creator. If the creator doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe, making the whole hypothesis absurd. And it is just a hypothesis, not a theory, and cannot be in any way held up as an alternative to evolution by anyone with half a brain.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    You're making an attack on religion. I was explaining ID. I understand that religious creation-type people use ID as a shield from which to launch their anti-science attacks. I got that. What I'm trying to explain to you is that ID, as a way of knowing something, is a separate thing. In my opinion, people who mix up ID and creationism, from either side, look like morons. They're two different things. It's like attacking people from the American South as being KKK rednecks. Yes, there is that part. But to mix it all up is to display a lack of understanding and a willingness not to think. Not thinking is bad. Better to understand ID and then attack creationists than just lump it all together. Ignorance is one thing, but stupidity -- the willful continuation of not learning -- is another. That's bad on any side of a discussion. When the science guys start acting stupid, you know the discussion is in trouble.
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      > You're making an attack on religion. I was explaining ID. And you're still pretending they're different things. You might like to think that ID is just a thought process, separate from religion that one can use to assess anything but that ignores the reality that ID isn't used in that way by the vast majority of its believers. It's used as a shield for creationism for those attempting to corrupt our legal processes. ID is a word, and it means what most people use it for, not what you want it to technically mean or what you thought it originally meant. The purpose of words is to communicate, those words are owned by creationists, so if you're really attempting to just communicate and get others to think then it's up to you to choose a better word that doesn't already have massively negative connotations. Trying to talk about ID in absence of religion is like trying to talk about hacking to grandma while ignoring the fact that to the larger majority of people hacking means committing a crime.

by likpok 18y ago

electromagnetic 18y ago

Agreed. Personally I see ID as an insult to religion, 'God' created the universe yet apparently he has to interfere 14 billion years later to create mankind because we're just so special, making him just so incompetent and not a true supreme being. I mean why worship the supernatural if it's just not unbelievable. I mean at least the Greek and the Norse gods knew how to have fun!

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

ID == given any set of conditions, the cause of those conditions may be natural or an external agent (or a combination) ID presumes an external agent. Arguments for ID include complexity and the watch, etc. Application of ID may mostly be by religious people. But ID itself is just common sense. You make an observation -- have a perception. You acknowledge that you either 1) believe you understand everything about how that reality occurred, 2) believe you understand a little but one day will understand everything, 3) believe that agencies unknown to you created that perception and the true cause lies in another set of facts unknown to you. (eventually understandable or not) Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how ID theory looks to me. To make a factitious example, lizard people from the planet Xypton diverted an asteroid millions of years ago and killed the dinosaurs. The fall of the dinosaurs has an ID basis then. But I doubt we'll see a lot of lizard people churches anytime soon. It's just basic epistemology.

MaysonL 18y ago
Personally, I think that ID, like creationism, is blasphemous: it's calling God a liar.
gnaritas 18y ago
> But ID itself is just common sense. Hardly, rather, it is common ignorance. ID is creationism, plain and simple. Its primary premise that the universe is too complex to have been an accident and thus must have been created absurdly ignores that its chief objection must also be applied to this supposed creator. If the creator doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe, making the whole hypothesis absurd. And it is just a hypothesis, not a theory, and cannot be in any way held up as an alternative to evolution by anyone with half a brain.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  You're making an attack on religion. I was explaining ID. I understand that religious creation-type people use ID as a shield from which to launch their anti-science attacks. I got that. What I'm trying to explain to you is that ID, as a way of knowing something, is a separate thing. In my opinion, people who mix up ID and creationism, from either side, look like morons. They're two different things. It's like attacking people from the American South as being KKK rednecks. Yes, there is that part. But to mix it all up is to display a lack of understanding and a willingness not to think. Not thinking is bad. Better to understand ID and then attack creationists than just lump it all together. Ignorance is one thing, but stupidity -- the willful continuation of not learning -- is another. That's bad on any side of a discussion. When the science guys start acting stupid, you know the discussion is in trouble.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    > You're making an attack on religion. I was explaining ID. And you're still pretending they're different things. You might like to think that ID is just a thought process, separate from religion that one can use to assess anything but that ignores the reality that ID isn't used in that way by the vast majority of its believers. It's used as a shield for creationism for those attempting to corrupt our legal processes. ID is a word, and it means what most people use it for, not what you want it to technically mean or what you thought it originally meant. The purpose of words is to communicate, those words are owned by creationists, so if you're really attempting to just communicate and get others to think then it's up to you to choose a better word that doesn't already have massively negative connotations. Trying to talk about ID in absence of religion is like trying to talk about hacking to grandma while ignoring the fact that to the larger majority of people hacking means committing a crime.