Intelligent Design - A C.J. of Contradiction

[manifold]

Intelligent Design - A Circle Jerk of Contradiction.

The major points of the ID 'thesis' go something like this...

1. Scientific theories about the origins of life and the universe cannot explain everything perfectly, which means there is much that we still don't understand. Therefore it is unreasonable to accept these theories as plausible explanations for anything.
2. By substituting the 'God' theory in place of contemporary scientific theories, we no longer need to be troubled by the vast unknown since we lack the ability to comprehend God's glory anyway. Therefore it is reasonable and logical to accept the 'God' theory as it explains everything perfectly... as wholly unexplainable.

So the ID nutter essentially argues that scientific theories fail specifically because they can't explain everything, but ID succeeds specifically because it can't explain anything.

And that is a circle jerk of contradiction if ever there was one.

 

[manifold]

More nuttery from Ravi's backyard.

Scientists worry about “antievolution” bill filed in Florida Senate – Sentinel School Zone – Orlando Sentinel

 

[Sheldon]

Another troll thread?



I would just add a footnote--

1. Scientific theories about the origins of life and the universe cannot explain everything perfectly, which means there is much that we still don't understand. Therefore it is unreasonable to accept these theories as plausible explanations for anything.

that to first truly accept a theory, you have to understand it. So what's going on here is usually not an informed rejection of what these theories or ideas ACTUALLY say, but a rejection of what the Id'ers THINK those theories say--which seems to be two different things more often than not.

This makes me think of that Hitchens quote that goes something like, 'claims made without evidence can then be dismissed without evidence'. That's how I approach this debate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Intelligent Design - A Circle Jerk of Contradiction.

The major points of the ID 'thesis' go something like this...

1. Scientific theories about the origins of life and the universe cannot explain everything perfectly, which means there is much that we still don't understand. Therefore it is unreasonable to accept these theories as plausible explanations for anything.
2. By substituting the 'God' theory in place of contemporary scientific theories, we no longer need to be troubled by the vast unknown since we lack the ability to comprehend God's glory anyway. Therefore it is reasonable and logical to accept the 'God' theory as it explains everything perfectly... as wholly unexplainable.

So the ID nutter essentially argues that scientific theories fail specifically because they can't explain everything, but ID succeeds specifically because it can't explain anything.

And that is a circle jerk of contradiction if ever there was one.

Which Intelligent Design thesis are you talking about? Most of them I have looked at use science to argue that ID makes more sense than undirected evolution. The only group that I have seen to argue on the basis of science not understand things are the Young Earth Creationists, which is a completely different group than Intelligent Design.

 

[Ravi]

6% of Floridians are intelligent life forms, and we pay for the 94% of the crackers that live here.

True story.