Intelligent Design

Second Argument While my opponent is correct in many assumptions from my first argument, my opponent still fails to address how we know historical figures did believe in some sort of Intelligent Design. I started that line of argument for this second argument to have some meaning. Some, it would seem, would have us ignorant that these people believed in these things. Dismissing what we know to be true about these people"s belief systems is not responsibly acknowledging the bias many of them might have had. This would be tragic for all mankind because it shows how many of these historical figures thought, which leads Scientists to understand the logical fallacies they had. Thales During his time, Thales properly predicted a Solar Eclipse. This was quite an advancement in Greek Philosophy. However, we shouldn"t discredit that Thales believed that "All Things Are Full Of Gods". To do so would not show how far Science has advanced our societies. Because of Thales" work, we are now better able to predict every time we have a Solar Eclipse. Should we ignore that he was personally biased in other areas because he believed in some type of Intelligent Design? Of course not! We would be doing him and his time period a great disservice, both by neglecting history and by dismissing his bias. Newton Principia, in 1687: I do not think it explicable by mere natural causes but am forced to ascribe it to ye counsel and contrivance of a voluntary agent.' A month later he wrote to Bentley again: 'Gravity may put ye planets into motion but without ye divine power it could never put them into such a Circulating motion as they have about ye Sun, and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe ye frame of this Systeme to an intelligent Agent.' If, for example, the earth revolved on its axis at only one hundred miles per hour instead of one thousand miles per hour, night would ten times longer and the world would be too cold to sustain life; during the long day, the heat would shrivel all the vegetation. The Being which had contrived all this so perfectly had to be a supremely intelligent Mechanick. (http://www.library.usyd.edu.au... ) Should this be randomly dismissed as the ranting of an archaic person? Of course not! If we dismiss this man"s beliefs, we wouldn"t understand why he couldn"t go further himself with the mathematics of the Universe. He was a devout person with his belief systems. This was part of who he was. Understanding how he thought has lead to many other people knowing their intellectual limits. There are many more historical figures that believed a Being created this world. Studying how these people were personally biased is not irrelevant to this discussion. It is more relevant to understand these opinions because it shows flaws in their logic, especially concerning why they stopped short in some areas. Neil deGrasse-Tyson Dr. deGrasse-Tyson recently gave a lecture in which he criticized the Scientific Community for forgetting these people believed in Intelligent Design. He went on to say that of course our current knowledge of how the Universe works discredits those ideas, but maintains they should not be randomly dismissed. Here is a great explanation as to Intelligent Design: http://www.youtube.com... Closing 2 Of course, dismissing History is neither wanted nor desired. We can still study why these and other people had personal bias based upon their belief systems. To simply say that what they believed, whether Alchemists, Astrologists, or any other of the Ancient Sciences, is irrelevant misses out on the many biases we still have today. It doesn"t allow for effective communication, misses the point of historical bias, and quite unfortunately leaves many people unintelligent about history and unintelligent about other areas of philosophy, including Theosophy. Theosophy has added enormous value to our societies. It allows people to actually think about the greater mysteries of the Universe. By dismissing this school of Philosophy, we dismiss the very essence of why people look beyond themselves. We dismiss that people, like Sir Isaac Newton, were truth seekers because they were concerned with understanding the mysteries of an Intelligent Designer. Should Intelligent Design be taught as though it were pure Science? Since Intelligent Design has helped many historical figures to understand the world we live in, and the Multiverse we live in, it shouldn"t be discounted, dismissed, or even ridiculed. Instead, it should be embraced but understood that flaws exist in the Philosophy. It should be acknowledged that without this Philosophy, Science wouldn"t better understand today why things like the Ion Drive work, or how the Speed of Sound can be broken. People wouldn"t care whether we had Electric, or if we could sail around the world. We would be stuck in the Stone Ages without people who wanted to understand what and where we live. So, yes, Scientists should allow, if for nothing else out of respect for historical accuracy, Intelligent Design being taught as historically relevant. Simply dismissing Intelligent Design is akin to trying to change the history of science itself. Thank you for the 2nd part of this debate. I await my friend and opponents response.