Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- version30
thank you
- 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.
- ********0
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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- -sputnik-0
"purposeful design"
ooooohhkaaaaay...
- 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
- version30
the world is flat and none of your science can convince me otherwise.
discipler
(Dec 20 05, 10:03)
- 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.
- discipler0
sputnik, take a good long look at the structure of the bacterial flagellum (an outboard motor more efficient than motors designed by humans) and then tell me it was the product of random, unguided Darwinian mechanisms.
- discipler0
Mimio:
a.) If that were true of ID, who cares. If the science points to the supernatural, we have an obligation to follow it there.
but,
b.) ID does not posit a supernatural designer. For the sake of argument, the designer could alien life, or some telic cognizant intelligent "force" within the confines of matter/energy.
- liquid0
hey discipler why dont you make a new years resolution to participate in threads not only to do with religion.....
you are so predictable it is sickening......
- -sputnik-0
"random, unguided Darwinian mechanisms"?
Darwinian evolution is not random...pick up a textbook.
i'm sorry discipler, but that is an ignorant statement.
- discipler0
hey liquid, you're a broken record. If you a look around a bit, you'll see that i have participated in non-science, non-religious, non-sensical threads.
Besides, somebody has to balance the gross imbalance here.
- -sputnik-0
hey liquid, you're a broken record...
discipler
(Dec 20 05, 10:12)----
haha, now THAT'S the pot calling the kettle black.
- discipler0
oh don't be fooled, sputnik. Natural Selection + Unguided (random) mutation, is very much so. I have in fact, looked through biology textbooks. NS + RM has huge limitations and this is what science is observing. It's time we got used to it and just let go.
- Mimio0
But evolution or ID would have to be applied to the existence of the that life/intelligence as well. Ultimately the ID argument is saying that natural process don't produce biological systems that actually exist, outside of hypothetical creatures(apparently non-biological).
- discipler0
haha, now THAT'S the pot calling the kettle black.
-sputnik-
(Dec 20 05, 10:13)-----------------
heh. Same issue keeps coming up here. I'm gonna keep providing correct data. ;)
- discipler0
But Mimio, ID is much more modest than you assert. It cannot, scientifically, identify the designer. It can only observe biological systems and rightly conclude that Darwin's mechanism is insufficient to produce them. The door is left open for further exploration, more so than you think.