Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Paul

Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific

Recommended Posts

Springer If you read the first post, it was established that this thread was for discussing the merits of ID.

 

First post, from the thread initiatorJohn Paul

 

In the second post Joshua quickly agreed with (with an interesting point on the status of ID)

 

So I think the precedent is established, this topic is to discuss the merits (or not) of ID alone, there are after all numerous established criticisms of evolution and old earth currently running.

 

So, is ID scientific?

 

If yes, it must conform to the status quo of the current rules (obviously),

If no, it’s not scientific (under the current definition).

 

If you agree the answer is no, but feel cheated somehow because the rules are biased, then I suggest that the ID or YEC movement abandon ID as science, and form a new branch of investigation using different rules of investigation to prove mainstream science has got it wrong. If that line of investigation provides results then there should be no problem in persuading the scientific community of their error. Can’t really argue with a good result it stands on it’s merits.

5584[/snapback]

My intent is to point out that ID should be included in scientific discussion. I bring up other areas of science to prove that ID conforms to accepted standards of science as practiced in other fields. It's ridiculous to think that ID must sit off in a vacuum somewhere and be scrutinized without reference to any other scientific discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science only deals in the nautralistic.  If a naturalistic explination doesn't cut it, then it's no longer science.  Science doesn't deal in magic.

ID is not "magic". ID conforms to laws which we don't understand. You're inserting your religion into this discussion, which has no place in the realm of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My intent is to point out that ID should be included in scientific discussion.

We understand this.

 

I bring up other areas of science to prove that ID conforms to accepted standards of science as practiced in other fields.

Do you! I think you have been attempting to show that science does not conform to it’s own standards, and thus validate ID (a version of What’s good for the goose is good for the gander). Well I put it to you that that is a separate discussion and this one is specifically for the merits of ID only.

 

 

It's ridiculous to think that ID must sit off in a vacuum somewhere and be scrutinized without reference to any other scientific discipline.

That is what this topic was specifically designed for, to discuss the merits of ID alone. There are plenty of topics around for comparison, but this topic was very specific for establishing if ID can stand on it’s own.

 

Because the challenge is, that ID cannot stand on it’s own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID is magic.  "God did it" is not a scientific explanation, it's religion. 

ID is a logical conclusion based on observation. To you, abiogenesis is magic. You have no explanation, so you invoke whimsical laws that defy that don’t exist and say it just happened. Your conclusion is based not on any observational evidence or experimentation, but is founded on your personal religious bias.

You’re projecting your own failings onto your opponents.

Are you suggesting that religion is a sign of weakness? Hitler and Stalin would agree with you.

 

Irreducible complexity is an intellectual cop-out.  If science took this point of view we would still need fanciful stories to explain rainbows.  I'm sure the sun was once thought to be "irreducibly complex", but because that didn't satisfy actual scientists, now we know better.

I’ve heard this argument before. I’m expected to just assume that something is true despite the fact that it makes no logical sense? Since ToE is a “factâ€ÂÂ, I should accept all its inconsistencies on faith.

 

You want to come across a mystery and exclaim "Look at how complex!  We'll never understand this!  Let's not even try, say God did it, and call it a day.  C'mon Dr. Behe, it's Miller time!"

 

How is this science?  It's not.

 

You've yet to meet a single criterion of science.  Let me know when you do, but I'm done listening to your religious ratings.

 

JustTed, your rhetoric only demonstrates that evolution is your religion. You trivialize others’ religion and zealously defend an ideology based on assumptions and opinions rather than objective evidence.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We understand this.

Do you! I think you have been attempting to show that science does not conform to it’s own standards, and thus validate ID (a version of What’s good for the goose is good for the gander).  Well I put it to you that that is a separate discussion and this one is specifically for the merits of ID only.

That is what this topic was specifically designed for, to discuss the merits of ID alone.  There are plenty of topics around for comparison, but this topic was very specific for establishing if ID can stand on it’s own. 

 

Because the challenge is, that ID cannot stand on it’s own.

5590[/snapback]

The rigidity of science as outlined by JustTed is unrealistic. My contention is that in other branches of science that are well accepted conclusions are drawn based on observations. There is no absolute proof that 1+2 = 2+1. Everyone accepts it because it is logical. I'm saying ID can stand on its own as well as many other scientific disciplines, not the least of which is ToE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rigidity of science as outlined by JustTed is unrealistic.  My contention is that in other branches of science that are well accepted conclusions are drawn based on observations.  There is no absolute proof that 1+2 = 2+1.  Everyone accepts it because it is logical.  I'm saying ID can stand on its own as well as many other scientific disciplines, not the least of which is ToE.

5592[/snapback]

#1: The rigidity of science as outlined by JustTed is unrealistic.

 

As was said, it's not his outline, it's the standards that science adheres to. It's not unrealistic standards, it's THE standards.

 

#2: My contention is that in other branches of science that are well accepted conclusions are drawn based on observations.

 

This is incorrect, there are no 'well accepted conclusions' based solely on observation. Unless you have some to offer?

 

#3: There is no absolute proof that 1+2 = 2+1. Everyone accepts it because it is logical.

 

You've heard of mathematical proofs right? It's not correct and accepted because it 'looks' correct. It's not correct because it's 'logical' (There are things in mathematics which DO NOT look correct, and seem illogical to most people, such as .99999to infinity =1). It's correct because it can be demonstrated with a mathematical proof.

 

It has nothing to do with logical conclusions, looking 'right', or sounding good. If another mathematical proof came along that disproved that, it would no longer be valid, no matter 'how good' it looks.

 

#4: I'm saying ID can stand on its own as well as many other scientific disciplines

 

Great. I'm really interested in seeing that. I've asked questions in this thread which still remain unanswered. Can you address them? Can you show where Intelligent Design is falsifiable for a start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 92g

But this isn't an evolution vs. ID debate!  We're trying to determine if ID is science.  Evolution is not the least bit involved.

 

Disproving evolution would not make ID any more correct.  Got it?

 

ID must meet the standards of science, which are not opinionated.  They've been around for centuries and you can find them all over the web.

 

I gave you a concept of ID that can be addressed scientifically and you ignored it.

 

IMO, you are only standing behind definitions that suit your purpose, and are not interested in an honest discussion.

 

The definitions of science were not handed down by The Lord, and are up for debate. To hide behind a certain viewpoint, just to ignore reality, and win an argument is a waste of time.

 

If you think you've made your point, that' fine, but wasting time is a violation of forum rules.

 

The bottom line is that only the intellectually honest need apply to participate in this board. Our moderators will be primarily looking to identify those who give even the slightest inkling that they are here to waste people’s time, consciously or otherwise. We will be looking for repeated cases of red-herrings, quibbling over terms (equivocation), strawmen, false allegations, and other devices contrary to honest debate. If this is your style of debate, then this forum isn’t for you.

Forum Rules

 

I'm clsoing this thread for admin review. Its bogged down and is not going anywhere at this point.

 

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms