The 'Science' of Intelligent Design

Damocles said:
Yeah, that's what I said... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, but.... Isn't behavioral characteristics of animals valid scientific evidence? Isn't the "organization vs. randomness" observation valid science? What about the law of probability? Isn't that a vital part of scientific evaluations?

I can accept an argument that ID isn't "science as we currently understand science" maybe... but that isn't what you are claiming. Before we discovered that nuclear fission was possible, was it also not "science" according to you? OR was it just not "science as we currently understood science?"

You see, I can't "prove" Intelligent Design, no one can, not even science. But the evidence I have presented is a valid observation of the natural world, of nature in general, and conforms to the same criteria science uses to determine any number of theories.
 
Dixie said:
Well, but.... Isn't behavioral characteristics of animals valid scientific evidence? Isn't the "organization vs. randomness" observation valid science? What about the law of probability? Isn't that a vital part of scientific evaluations?

I can accept an argument that ID isn't "science as we currently understand science" maybe... but that isn't what you are claiming. Before we discovered that nuclear fission was possible, was it also not "science" according to you? OR was it just not "science as we currently understood science?"

You see, I can't "prove" Intelligent Design, no one can, not even science. But the evidence I have presented is a valid observation of the natural world, of nature in general, and conforms to the same criteria science uses to determine any number of theories.
Click to expand...

Good post, Dix. You're going in a great direction lately, hope you keep it up.
 
Dixie said:
So you guys reject the scientific evidence I presented on what? General principle?
Click to expand...
No. We reject it on the basis that it's not science. You can change the definition of science all you want Dixie but us scientist will not accept ID as science. It has been debunked.
 
... not to mention that Dixie keeps changing the definition of what he considers intelligent design. For instance, one second he'll say that systems are irreducibly complex and therefore can't result from gradual evolution, then he'll turn around and say that evolution AND id might be correct and id just explains where evolution started (in total contradiction to what he previously stated).

He'll tell you that ID isn't religion, then he'll start talking about how we're all God haters and quote the bible.

Amazing.
 
Mott, I think we are wasting our time. No matter how much we try and show what science is and isn't, Dixie is still going to argue.

The following quotes from Dixie show he understands ID is not science:

"...ID isn't "science as we currently understand science"".

"Isn't it more accurate to say, ID is not science as you currently know and understand science?"

"Based on what science currently knows, perhaps this is the case, but as you've already said, science doesn't know everything."





He just wants to continue his rants against anti-christian, atheistic, liberal pinheads.


:wall: :bdh:
 
Southern Man said:
Per usual, not one intelligent comment from the closed minded evolutionists. :)
Click to expand...

There have been plenty of detailed, intelligent posts by those "evolutionists". This is (at least) the 3rd thread to delve into this topic in depth. And as far as "closed minded" goes, several of us have said that ID is not necessarily invalid, just not science and therefore should not be taught in science class.

In otherwords, we have shown some acceptance of other ideas. The IDers however, well.......
 
Solitary said:
There have been plenty of detailed, intelligent posts by those "evolutionists". This is (at least) the 3rd thread to delve into this topic in depth. And as far as "closed minded" goes, several of us have said that ID is not necessarily invalid, just not science and therefore should not be taught in science class.

In otherwords, we have shown some acceptance of other ideas. The IDers however, well.......
Click to expand...
The IDers, what exactly?
 
uscitizen said:
So you are saying that the IDers are open to the idea of evolution spawned creation and development of life?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that the IDers are open to schools teaching alternate theories in an apples to apples comparison. The evolutionists, however, are not.
 
Southern Man said:
I'm saying that the IDers are open to schools teaching alternate theories in an apples to apples comparison. The evolutionists, however, are not.
Click to expand...

The "evolutionists" are open to the idea that either concept could be true. Most of those posting have not denied the possibility of ID. They have argued that ID should not be taught in science class. And that is true.

IDers, on the other hand, have acted as though evolution is a personal attack on their beliefs.
 
Solitary said:
The "evolutionists" are open to the idea that either concept could be true. Most of those posting have not denied the possibility of ID. They have argued that ID should not be taught in science class. And that is true.

IDers, on the other hand, have acted as though evolution is a personal attack on their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Again, the evolutionists are closed-minded to schools teaching alternate theories in an apples to apples comparison. You apparently acknowledged that above.

IDers have no such stated policy that you have imagined in your second paragraph.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, the evolutionists are closed-minded to schools teaching alternate theories in an apples to apples comparison. You apparently acknowledged that above.

IDers have no such stated policy that you have imagined in your second paragraph.
Click to expand...

"Evolutionists" have stated why ID should not be taught in a science class. And that is because it does not fit the scientific model or method. Even Dixie has admitted that.

To teach it in a science class would be to teach that there are rules, methods, and models for all science. And then throw those rules, methods, and models out just for the purpose of teaching ID.




Also, in another thread you bemoaned the idea that a teacher with tenure would do whatever they wanted, so teaching ID in a Comparative Religion or Philosophy class would not happen.

When Damocles mentioned that ID could be taught in a Philosophy Class, you responded with "The secularists won't let that happen either. Stop fooling yourself what their motives are."
 
Mottleydude said:
No. We reject it on the basis that it's not science. You can change the definition of science all you want Dixie but us scientist will not accept ID as science. It has been debunked.
Click to expand...

"Debunked" is a word used to describe something that has been disproved, and science neither proves or disproves. So you can't say ID has been debunked, it is contradictory to science principles to do so. You can claim there is no scientific evidence to support ID, but I have presented several scientific pieces of evidence to support it, and those have not been refuted or debunked.

According to Darwin, the process of natural selection involves a species, over time, developing attributes necessary for survival. How would a species with a photo-cell type eye, need to develop a useless cornea and retina to survive? The components are essential for a human eye, but "evolution" doesn't know this. The species would not 'evolve' such components, because there is no direct use or purpose related to survival. Now Mott, this is from Darwin's theory, which I am sure you regard as valid science. Back in the early 1900's, Darwin and other scientists didn't know how a primitive photo-cell type eye worked in a different way than the human eye, they theorized the photo-cell eye, over time, transformed into what we know as the human eye. But science discovered the fundamental difference in functionality of the two, and so... according to Darwin's own theory, it is inherently impossible for the human eye to have 'evolved' from a photo-cell eye, as was previously thought.

Irreducible complexity is based on Darwin's theory, and what it predicts. It is contradictory of the theory to conclude components which make up complex parts of the human anatomy, were 'evolved' into the species, because this would require evolution to do something it is incapable of doing.

Also, there has never been any evidence that one species 'evolved' into another. All archeological evidence we've discovered, indicates species evolved within their own genus. So the belief that humans were previously something else, is not supported by science... you may say it has been "debunked." I'll just say it hasn't been supported by any scientific evidence we've found so far.
 
Dixie said:
"Debunked" is a word used to describe something that has been disproved, and science neither proves or disproves. So you can't say ID has been debunked, it is contradictory to science principles to do so. You can claim there is no scientific evidence to support ID, but I have presented several scientific pieces of evidence to support it, and those have not been refuted or debunked.

According to Darwin, the process of natural selection involves a species, over time, developing attributes necessary for survival. How would a species with a photo-cell type eye, need to develop a useless cornea and retina to survive? The components are essential for a human eye, but "evolution" doesn't know this. The species would not 'evolve' such components, because there is no direct use or purpose related to survival. Now Mott, this is from Darwin's theory, which I am sure you regard as valid science. Back in the early 1900's, Darwin and other scientists didn't know how a primitive photo-cell type eye worked in a different way than the human eye, they theorized the photo-cell eye, over time, transformed into what we know as the human eye. But science discovered the fundamental difference in functionality of the two, and so... according to Darwin's own theory, it is inherently impossible for the human eye to have 'evolved' from a photo-cell eye, as was previously thought.

Irreducible complexity is based on Darwin's theory, and what it predicts. It is contradictory of the theory to conclude components which make up complex parts of the human anatomy, were 'evolved' into the species, because this would require evolution to do something it is incapable of doing.

Also, there has never been any evidence that one species 'evolved' into another. All archeological evidence we've discovered, indicates species evolved within their own genus. So the belief that humans were previously something else, is not supported by science... you may say it has been "debunked." I'll just say it hasn't been supported by any scientific evidence we've found so far.
Click to expand...

I would question whether Mott was saying that ID itself has been debunked, or the claim that ID is science has been debunked.

It was my impression that he meant the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top