Creationism vs Intelligent Design?

[geauxtohell]

[
What the hell are you talking about now....i never said einstein re-examined newton's work becaue of ID.

What I said was Einstein expanded on newtons laws of physics, much like ID people are trying to do with Darwins Theory of evolution.

Again, you miss the point which was this: Einstein revised Newtons finding within the confines of the scientific method. ID can not meet that standard. So your analogy is a poor one.

I then went on to say your Stance on ID was akin to being against Einstein looking into physics since darwin "Already figured it out". Or its akin to not looking into plate techtonics because we knew at one point the earth's crust didn't move. I think you need a 3rd example....not exploring astronomy because we know the earth is the center of the universe.

And I explained why that's a poor analogy. No on here is arguing that science shouldn't be constantly re-examined. We are merely stating it has to be done so in a scientifically sound manner.

I don't need anymore examples. I get what you are saying, you just aren't getting the jest of our point.

By just trying to shut down ID using bogus claims of supernatural religious vodoo you are acting like the flat-earthers and the old school catholic church in your efforts to shut down a different avenue of research.

Do you get a nickle everytime you use the term "flat earther"? BTW, the crux of ID is that a supernatural force guided evolution. That's not even up for debate, and we have not made it up as a pejorative.

Do you even know what you are arguing for and against?

Please take more time when reading my posts so you can comprehend what I'm writing.

Pot meet kettle. I would add on for you; please take some time to study the methodology of science and maybe then you will understand our point.

Or you can go to youtube and watch Dr. Ken Miller's presentation at Case Western. He does an outstanding job of explaining the issue.

 

[geauxtohell]

I made my last post to show what we might have missed if we discounted scientists that believe in god.
One scientists that did not believe in god was Percival Lowell, who spent his life looking for little green men on mars to prove that god did not exist.

One extreme is no different than the other.
Those that want to prevent any subject work in the field of science for any reason are the ones that deny the scientific method. The scientific method is what our schools should teach students, and that scientific method includes critical thinking skills. That's what's missing from some in this thread, critical thing skills.
Those that have a shortage of critical thinking skills are the ones that want to place limits on science or make statements saying that one group of researchers study science, the other group studies superstition. There should be no limits, none. The only limits should be that the process of study must follow the scientific method, which includes critical thinking skills and providing data that can be independently reproduced.
Anyone who states that "the science is settled, the debate is over" in any field of study should be censored by their piers.
those that are threatened by research that might disprove their opinions are not capable of critical thinking, and therefore, anti-science.

Oh for crying out loud. We've just jumped the shark. No one has ever claimed that scientists have to be atheists. You guys are really missing the point.

The issue is not a scientist's personal belief. The issue is allowing a personal belief to bias their professional work.

This isn't much different from many other professions that no one has any problem with. I'll give you an analogy:

A police officer who is a Mormon can't start writing tickets for people he catches drinking caffeine. He recognizes that his personal belief is different from his professional duties.

This is the exact same thing.

 

[geauxtohell]

If philosophy, comparative religions, liberal arts are studied by applying the scientific method, then they are indeed science.

No they aren't. If you graduate with a degree in any of the aforementioned fields you get a BA not a BS.

Same applies to mathamatics, physics, geology and medicine.

Yes, because those are scientific fields.

Science is really about the method of studying, rather than the subject being studied.
The scientific method of study doesn't include barring some based on personal beliefs, and especially doesn't include the statement "the science is settled, the debate is over".

It would pretty hard to utilize the scientific method in philosophy, since there is no quantitative data and p values and hypothesis, etc.

Other fields may adapt some of the logical processes of science in their venture, but that doesn't make them scientific fields.

 

[geauxtohell]

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program

No, it doesn't. ID posits the existence of a supernatural force or entity and falls wholly outside the realms ofscience.

And I don't get why this concept is so fucking hard for some people.

Actually I do. I learned long ago, when dealing with ID'ers, obfuscations, distortions, and outright lies are the norm to try and hide their real intent.

There has been one intelligent post on here regarding ID. The rest has been the usual re-hashed talking points straight from the discovery institute.

This is why they always fail, just as they did in Dover.

 

[manifold]

Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

Complete and total BULLSHIT!

Theorize, hypothesize, speculate... yes.

But determine? NO FUCKING WAY.

ID FAIL!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

Complete and total BULLSHIT!

Theorize, hypothesize, speculate... yes.

But determine? NO FUCKING WAY.

ID FAIL!

Manifold is having a Meltdown

What's wrong dude?

 

[manifold]

meltdown?

I just know your comprehension and reasoning skills are sub par so I was bolding the important parts just for you... because I like you.

 

[Anguille]

Some dupe just told me they're wicked different.

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining exactly where the two disagree?

I recall reading about one case, in I think it was in a PA school systems, where religious nuts were in court trying to force science teacher to teach intelligent design. They lost because it was shown that the Intelligent Design propaganda was nothing more than creationism tracts with "creationism" edited out and "intelligent design" edited in to replace. Otherwise it was all the same text. Word for word.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

meltdown?

I just know your comprehension and reasoning skills are sub par so I was bolding the important parts just for you... because I like you.

rep for the funnies

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Intelligent design - New World Encyclopedia

Scientific Method makes it science....at least thats what I was told by SOMEONE earlier in this thread

 

[geauxtohell]

Some dupe just told me they're wicked different.

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining exactly where the two disagree?

I recall reading about one case, in I think it was in a PA school systems, where religious nuts were in court trying to force science teacher to teach intelligent design. They lost because it was shown that the Intelligent Design propaganda was nothing more than creationism tracts with "creationism" edited out and "intelligent design" edited in to replace. Otherwise it was all the same text. Word for word.

That's the Dover case.

In fact, that was essentially the final nail in the coffin for the modern ID movement (minus the few remaining stragglers). Philip Johnston, the born again lawyer, who founded the modern ID movement and the Discovery Institute and wrote "Darwin On Trial" was shaking in his boots over that trial. He wanted to avoid it at all costs, because he knew ID would lose. He was right, and after the trial he basically ran up the white flag.

PBS did a really good series on it. But it basically boiled down to the defendents (the ID movement) getting shredded. Their expert witnesses, to include biochemist Dr. Behe and his theory of "irreducible complexity, were similarly shredded.

In the end, the judge's opinion of the ID side was so scathing that he essentially suggested that could be charged with perjury.

That didn't happen, but the point is that it was a major ass whipping for Intelligent Design and established case law that equated ID with creationism and forever barred it from the classroom under the establishment clause.

 

[geauxtohell]

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Intelligent design - New World Encyclopedia

Scientific Method makes it science....at least thats what I was told by SOMEONE earlier in this thread

That would be me. And ID can not meet the standard of the scientific method because it doesn't have a null hypothesis.

The insistence of three or four ID scientists that it can, doesn't over ride the consensus of the rest of the field.

Be that as it may, they are more than welcome to try.

And yet......

They never do.

The only peer reviewed pro-ID article that has ever been published was snuck in on false pretenses and immediately redacted.

Like I said, when dealing with the modern ID movement, dishonesty is the norm.

At any rate, don't take my word for it. Take the National Academy of Science's:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

n 1999, the U. S. National Academy of Sciences declared that “intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”

 

[Ravi]

Isn't CSI some mumbo jumbo that ID proponents made up?

 

[geauxtohell]

The ID'ers are too dense to realize that for ID to be a scientifically valid theory, they must first be able to accept and prove that there is no God.

Knuckleheads.

 

[geauxtohell]

BTW, was anyone else aware that the "New World Encyclopedia" is run by the Moonies and basically consists of Wikipedia articles that they gussied up?

From the bottom of the main page:

New World Encyclopedia integrates facts with values.

Written by online collaboration with certified experts.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Project_Vision

No wonder PP linked it.

Way to go, PP. At least you didn't link "conservapedia"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Maybe PP is right. Perhaps we should fund more research in areas such as astrology, voodoo, tarot cards and palm reading since they are on equal scientific footing with intelligent design.

I'm up for that. How do I get in the union?

 

[amrchaos]

The difference??

Creationism died from legal and science conflicting problems.

Intelligent Design is Creationism re-born!

 

[amrchaos]

Pilg, facts are not stawmen.

Nice fail, though.

Which is why i left the rest of that post alone.

The part in red is the strawman though.

ID came about because some scientists realized that Darwin can't explain everything. They want to find out the scientific answers to explain the gaps.


Then you have flat-earthers who try to tear down these people who want to do research because they are closed minded flat-earther types.

If we never questioned science then We would still be using newtonian physics.

No --we would not have Newtionian Physics neither!!

If we never questioned science, we would have a religion!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Pilg, facts are not stawmen.

Nice fail, though.

Which is why i left the rest of that post alone.

The part in red is the strawman though.

ID came about because some scientists realized that Darwin can't explain everything. They want to find out the scientific answers to explain the gaps.


Then you have flat-earthers who try to tear down these people who want to do research because they are closed minded flat-earther types.

If we never questioned science then We would still be using newtonian physics.

No --we would not have Newtionian Physics neither!!

If we never questioned science, we would have a religion!!

It's the disingenuous nature of the arguments the religious pushers use that is sad. They take advantage of the lack of critical thinking skills of the average shmuck with half a brain....and we get these 'debates' with everyone misquoting and quoting out of context, scientists, politicians and great thinkers.

 

[manifold]

For the record: DevNell would never ever ever quote anyone out of context.