Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- Mimio0
In the naming of a "creator/designer" in the unnatural process in which those things were "created". The presuppositions and the theory are supernatual in nature.
- version30
the world is flat and none of your science can convince me otherwise.
discipler
(Dec 20 05, 10:03)
- spifflink0
oscar meyer makes the best b-o-l-o-g-n-a
the song doesnt work with r-h-e-t-o-r-i-c
- -sputnik-0
"purposeful design"
ooooohhkaaaaay...
- discipler0
Nonsense, mimio. You are clearly ignorant of the real scientific issues. There is nothing magical about:
- Observing digital code along the spine of the DNA molecule.
- Observing that molecular machines are more complex than those designed by the most gifted human engineers AND are irreducible.
- Obersving that the physical constants which govern our planet are fine-tuned to an impossible tolerance to support life.
It is science with an open mind, which follows the evidence. Where's the magic, sir?
- discipler0
nonsense, spifflink. ID is following scientific evidence where it leads, rather than restricting it to Methodological Naturalism. The articles I link come from proponents of ID, so what? Either they contain factual data, or they do not.
What I am in favor of is having America's children be taught that biological systems demonstrate purposeful design - no getting around this. And that Darwinian Evolution is antiquated science with more holes than a wheel of swiss cheese.
Teach kids truth, not steamboat era science.
- Mimio0
That's most scientists problem with ID. Ultimately ID is saying that science is not natural or observable, it's magic.
Do I even need to say that science is not magic and magic is not real? You'd think by now that people would realize that there are no supernatural events that are scientifically testable or observed.
- JazX0
It's amazing to see so many absolutists here. As if no one today can acknowledge that the opposing side has a good point.
What's wrong with you guys?
- spifflink0
sounds like meta-science. ID is pretty much muddying up the waters of the pursuit of truth by claiming they have an answer, although not a specific one. every single article you link to discipler comes from some blatently pro-ID organization and as such is suspect. if you value teaching/indoctrinating america's children this, then start establishing private schools for it and stop pushing it in the public domain.
- version30
thank you
- version30
600
- version30
i want it
- discipler0
ID cannot determine who the designer is (unless they find an autograph on a molecular machine). So, determining the identity of the designer is not science, it is philosophy.
- no-spin-zone0
The trouble with your example, no spin, is that you are comparing an issue of morality which impacts human life, with an issue of science. In the Dover case, you have a judge who ignored the overwhelming scientific evidence and made a decision based on implications that he personally was not comfortable with.
discipler
(Dec 20 05, 09:33)Also, this is just being disingenuous, by the way.
Activism is Activism.
The term "aActivist Judge" did not appear in any of my Poli Sci books in college. It was purely invented in the past few years.
- no-spin-zone0
I mean no disrespect, but it sounds like a bunch of Mumbo Jumbo to me.
Does the Creator have a son named Jesus?
I'm going to lunch before I offend someone.
- discipler0
Actually it can be tested, no spin. It's propaganda to say otherwise. SETI researchers and archaeologists have been deciphering when something is information (Specified Complexity) or whether it's the product of unguided mechanisms, for decades.
ID is nothing new. It's about observing and testing Specified Complexity. Only in the realm of biological systems.
- ukit0
I don't neccessarily have a problem with the sticker. I mean, it is a theory. If the ID folks need to go to such ridiculous lengths to make themselves feel better, then I'm cool with it.
- discipler0
This is the beginning of a cultural conflict and many MANY court cases to come. It's going to be interesting to watch as the censorship machines move forward, full throttle and try to spin the religious/political slant.
- no-spin-zone0
So if it cannot be scientifically tested, how is it science?
Again, I am no scientist but if a Creator cannot be tested, how is this valid.
I mean no offense, but you speak of people's "cherished world view".
Could that not also be applied to the proponents of ID that are part of religious organizations?
Isn't creation/intelligent design their "cherished world view"?