Who designed the ID?
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the thread...not even to the slighest extent...and is thus unnaturally useless to the this entire thread topic...
the Evolution vs ID debate arose as whether or not ID should be taught along side Evolution in science classes as an alternative. Since ID has nothing to do with science, we silence that debate right away. I think it has a use in this thread because we can see that, after realizing that ID is unscientific, it is just a cleverly-designed mock-up of Creationism with just as much proof.
Refute that statement with evidence of some sorts.
Refute that statement with evidence of some sorts.
Well maybe you should start another topic....
ANYTHING supernatural CANNOT be in science by definition, it has a natural bias....
Jeremyhfht
Registered Senior Member
Not true. If it has evidence, can be investigated, observed, etc, it can be very scientific. ID definitely isn't one of those things.
I agree with that.
That isn't to say, however, that if some shred of real evidence for Intelligent Design was to be uncovered, that we shouldn't discuss it and bring it to our education system.
If NASA says tomorrow, "I was just looking up last night...and I swear I saw an arm, dude..." then I'll believe that ID has merit. But until then, it will remain as a sneaky, dishonest cover for religious groups to convert people.
Then that would classify it as magic, pretty much, wouldn't it? And what purpose would it serve to teach something in our schools that can't be discussed or learned further? A kid can't grow up and get into the ID field, because, as you said, it is beyond the realms of science. Teaching it in schools would pretty much be like saying "This is the complete answer. There's nothing more to it. Don't even bother being interested, because you can't explore this matter further."
Yeah, let's teach something that not only is complete BS, but also encourages kids to not bother asking questions.
Kid: "So...what was this creator?
Teacher: "We don't know."
Kid: "Well, can I find out? Can I become a scientist and discover it for myself?"
Teacher: "No, because the Designer is supernatural, and therefore incapable of being studied."
Kid: "Oh...got any weed?"
But we are here BECAUSE of the conditions in the universe, not "the conditions of the universe are the way they are so that we could be here". Cause - effect, not vice-versa.
But not enough...
Many Worlds has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or anything remotely impnging on religion. It's a possible explanation for the wave/ particle duality. And it's an interpretation, not theory. One of many. It's not taken tremendously seriously, except by a few physicists (Deutsch is the only one springs to mind).
No supporting evidence
How do you distinguish between evidence of design as opposed to evidence of natural selection?
Really? We have no explanation at all of how they were built? Name some, name just one.
What evidence?
Cause follows effect, not vice versa.
And you still persist in your stupidity. I have no faith. It is not required.
Last edited:
Can everyone stop the damn logical fallacies? ID has no proof, and quit the damn "YOU REJECT THE PROOF!" bs and stop assuming I do. I haven't even been shown "proof" given by ID'ers. SHOW ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER PROOF, STOP SAYING I'M SOME DUMB ATHEIST (which has nothing to do with the debate) and show me the damn evidence! Don't ask me a stupid question, questions aren't evidence. I want E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Not logical fallacies which sidestep the debate.
Sorry, here are a few more "stupid" questions...
Provita, have you ever seriously considered the Irreducible Complexity argument? As far as I know, Michael Behe still holds that his theory is valid, even after many challenges to it. Do you know differently?
Also, is a peer review system really always going to produce the truth? Does that kind of system work perfectly in religion, or politics, or anywhere else on this earth? Does it not, at least sometimes, result in compromise or even in the manipulation of the truth, instead of truth? I know in religion this can easily happen, why not in Naturalism? Does it not, at least sometimes, involve egos, reputations, biases, peer pressure, or even the threat of loosing one's job if you disagree with the status quo?
I would appreciate your insights!
Peace
Last edited:
If i recall irreducible complexity correctly, its premise assumes that evolution is composed of chance mutations. The theory of evolution has extremely little (if anything at all) to do with mutations. As a matter of fact, mutations would be regarded as the exception to the rule (in evolutionary theory), which means, as an alternative to evolution, the IC argument fails.
Additionally, this argument has been found legally discredited as anything but a variant of creationism in the Kitzmiller v Dover School district case. It therefore matters very little if Behe still thinks he's right.
Additionally, this argument has been found legally discredited as anything but a variant of creationism in the Kitzmiller v Dover School district case. It therefore matters very little if Behe still thinks he's right.
Yes, I am aware of that court case, but I don't know if that really proves anything or not. A court case does not always equal scientific fact, mon capitan.
A court once determined that dropping a can of orange juice can cause breast cancer.
("The Interdependence of Science and Law," Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Supreme Court of the United States, Address at the 1998 American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exposition, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 16, 1998)
Last edited:
Correct, but the court case established (if it's the one I'm thinking about) that there was sufficient scientific (reda "overwhelming") evidence to destroy ID's case (all of which had been ignored by Behe & co when putting forward the original hypothesis).
(should be "mon capitan"
)I'll go with Enterprise on this one, since I'm not entirely learned on IC honestly. However, peer review, as far as I know, doesn't create compromise. A scientist states he has received certain results in an experiment and says how he did it. Other scientists try to duplicate the experiment, and if they find he did something wrong, or if they get different results, they inform the rest of the scientists about it. You have thousands of scientists worldwide doing the same experiment and if each and every time the same result occurs, they gather an agreed-upon solution. Granted, the solution can be wrong, and everyone knows that, but its the closest answer people can get until technology advances and our understanding of specific things ... well... advance.
And no, I wouldn't consider that a stupid question at all.
However, if I believe so myself, I have read quite a few articles explaining how IC was not a valid argument because the examples posed by Behe were reduced by several scientists who claimed that Behe was just ignorant in the fields of biology. I don't know if this is true or not.
And IC is evidence, according to you, right? Then you did answer my question
I'm off to research IC!
And no, I wouldn't consider that a stupid question at all.
However, if I believe so myself, I have read quite a few articles explaining how IC was not a valid argument because the examples posed by Behe were reduced by several scientists who claimed that Behe was just ignorant in the fields of biology. I don't know if this is true or not.
And IC is evidence, according to you, right? Then you did answer my question
I'm off to research IC!
I'll go with Enterprise on this one, since I'm not entirely learned on IC honestly. However, peer review, as far as I know, doesn't create compromise. A scientist states he has received certain results in an experiment and says how he did it. Other scientists try to duplicate the experiment, and if they find he did something wrong, or if they get different results, they inform the rest of the scientists about it. You have thousands of scientists worldwide doing the same experiment and if each and every time the same result occurs, they gather an agreed-upon solution. Granted, the solution can be wrong, and everyone knows that, but its the closest answer people can get until technology advances and our understanding of specific things ... well... advance.
And no, I wouldn't consider that a stupid question at all.
However, if I believe so myself, I have read quite a few articles explaining how IC was not a valid argument because the examples posed by Behe were reduced by several scientists who claimed that Behe was just ignorant in the fields of biology. I don't know if this is true or not.
And IC is evidence, according to you, right? Then you did answer my question
I'm off to research IC!
I do not know if it is good evidence or not! Let me know what you think about it.
Thanks