Intelligent Design Studies

[Cecilie1200]

We could easily solve this Evolution/ID argument with the scientific method, by setting up an experiment to test the abilities of this intelligent designer. Let us put your God to the test, as we test every scientific theory.

How should we go about designing this experiment? Perhaps we could hypothesize that God can make living organisms out of nothing but molecular components? Then we could set up the Miller-Urey experiment, but rather than using electricity to form amino acids, we can wait for God to work his miracles. If, after say, a year, God does not assemble the molecules into amino acids, we can infer that God does not have the ability to make living organisms out of non-living components.

Deal?

Possibly we could start with you defining ID correctly, so that you know what it is you're trying to test.

Intelligent Design posits that the complexity of life is such that it could only have been developed by an intelligent outside being, not a random process.

So far, experiments have shown that amino acids and nucleotides can spontaneously be formed by random activities that occur on earth all the time (lightning). The first of these experiments was the Miller-Urey experiment, which is why I referenced it.

If you are not willing to submit your Intelligent Designer to the tests of the scientific method, then keep your Intelligent Design at Sunday School.

Wrong on all counts.

Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself.

Therefore, that means that your amino acid remark is irrelevant and unrelated, particularly since Intelligent Design, so far as I know, doesn't make any claims as to the method an intelligent designer would have used for creating amino acids. Awww, shucks.

If you are not willing to research what you're talking about, then keep your remarks to yourself.

 

[eagleseven]

Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself.

Precisely what features, pray tell, are "best explained by an intelligent cause"? Be exact.

Therefore, that means that your amino acid remark is irrelevant and unrelated, particularly since Intelligent Design, so far as I know, doesn't make any claims as to the method an intelligent designer would have used for creating amino acids. Awww, shucks.

Awww, so it's not science, but philosophy?

If you are not willing to research what you're talking about, then keep your remarks to yourself.

I mistakenly treated Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, not a religious philosophy.

My bad!

 

[Father Time]

We could easily solve this Evolution/ID argument with the scientific method, by setting up an experiment to test the abilities of this intelligent designer. Let us put your God to the test, as we test every scientific theory.

How should we go about designing this experiment? Perhaps we could hypothesize that God can make living organisms out of nothing but molecular components? Then we could set up the Miller-Urey experiment, but rather than using electricity to form amino acids, we can wait for God to work his miracles. If, after say, a year, God does not assemble the molecules into amino acids, we can infer that God does not have the ability to make living organisms out of non-living components.

Deal?

One little problem with this, eagleseven.

Let say we assumme the evolution/no conscious God thoery on life. Then life must occur almost spontaneously. Thus you could come to the wrong conclusion(There is a God) while not performing the Miller-Urey experiment or whatever.

Life may take more forms than the ones we know of. There may be different lifeforms out there that may developed differently from our standard observations of life. How then would you seperate the Evol/NG theory from the IntelD/TIG theory in such a situation? Note: we could have a EVOL/TIG theory, just that in this case, God did not bring forth life. On the other hand, an ItelD/NG theory is impossible Because Who is the designer is not answered.

I just thought of something--I need to put my crazy thoughts into a book and sell it!!

The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing on the existence of God. Gods are outside the scope of science.

 

[Father Time]

Intelligent Design Studies

Republicans talk about including Intelligent Design Studies in today's curriculum, but I wonder, how can you assign homework if the answer is always, "Gawd did it"?

I wonder, how can you be so supercilious about something when you haven't even bothered to find out what it really is?

Oh, that's right. You're a leftist. 'Nuff said.

Then do tell us what ID is and how it isn't just creationism.

 

[Father Time]

Possibly we could start with you defining ID correctly, so that you know what it is you're trying to test.

Intelligent Design posits that the complexity of life is such that it could only have been developed by an intelligent outside being, not a random process.

So far, experiments have shown that amino acids and nucleotides can spontaneously be formed by random activities that occur on earth all the time (lightning). The first of these experiments was the Miller-Urey experiment, which is why I referenced it.

If you are not willing to submit your Intelligent Designer to the tests of the scientific method, then keep your Intelligent Design at Sunday School.

Wrong on all counts.

Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself.

How could you test such theories, where did the designer come from and how did they design life?

 

[PeterS]

We could easily solve this Evolution/ID argument with the scientific method, by setting up an experiment to test the abilities of this intelligent designer. Let us put your God to the test, as we test every scientific theory.

How should we go about designing this experiment? Perhaps we could hypothesize that God can make living organisms out of nothing but molecular components? Then we could set up the Miller-Urey experiment, but rather than using electricity to form amino acids, we can wait for God to work his miracles. If, after say, a year, God does not assemble the molecules into amino acids, we can infer that God does not have the ability to make living organisms out of non-living components.

Deal?

God??? ID doesn't postulate god only that an intelligence is responsible for complex creation. Is that intelligence even hanging around to work your experiment? If the intelligent flying space monkeys are off in another part of the galaxy making complex life your experiment falls flat but not because ID is wrong. ID fails the scientific method test but it seems so do you...

 

[Father Time]

We could easily solve this Evolution/ID argument with the scientific method, by setting up an experiment to test the abilities of this intelligent designer. Let us put your God to the test, as we test every scientific theory.

How should we go about designing this experiment? Perhaps we could hypothesize that God can make living organisms out of nothing but molecular components? Then we could set up the Miller-Urey experiment, but rather than using electricity to form amino acids, we can wait for God to work his miracles. If, after say, a year, God does not assemble the molecules into amino acids, we can infer that God does not have the ability to make living organisms out of non-living components.

Deal?

God??? ID doesn't postulate god only that an intelligence is responsible for complex creation. Is that intelligence even hanging around to work your experiment? If the intelligent flying space monkeys are off in another part of the galaxy making complex life your experiment falls flat but not because ID is wrong. ID fails the scientific method test but it seems so do you...

Why is everyone pretending it's science then?

 

[Toronado3800]

Stand the average American next to their Hyundai with a flat tire, jack in the trunk, tire tool under it, and a doughnut spare in hand, and they'll swear it is too complex a problem to overcome and wait for the AAA God to come by and put the spare tire on so they can go home and watch tv

 

[frazzledgear]

We could easily solve this Evolution/ID argument with the scientific method, by setting up an experiment to test the abilities of this intelligent designer. Let us put your God to the test, as we test every scientific theory.

How should we go about designing this experiment? Perhaps we could hypothesize that God can make living organisms out of nothing but molecular components? Then we could set up the Miller-Urey experiment, but rather than using electricity to form amino acids, we can wait for God to work his miracles. If, after say, a year, God does not assemble the molecules into amino acids, we can infer that God does not have the ability to make living organisms out of non-living components.

Deal?

You misstate the theory of intelligent design which is NOT a theory that attempts to explain EVERYTHING -as the theory of evolution does. It has only been proposed as a theory by SCIENTISTS themselves for very specific phenomena for which they believe all other possible explanations have been ruled out. It is NOT the same thing as creationism which essentially just says God created it all. The Bible is not a science book and was not intended to try and explain the natural world. The fact that some religious people like this theory changes nothing -scientific fact isn't determined by whether it contradicts OR agrees with any religious doctrine. You'd think we learned that one a long time ago but apparently some people think any theory that happens to fit with some religious belief is automatically wrong. That is no more true than when people believed only those theories that fit with religious beliefs could possibly be correct. The theory of intelligent design is NOT religion based, it is not born from religious doctrine but as the result of scientific research and has been proposed for roughly 15 or 16 specific phenomena. The fact that some religious people have glommed onto this theory only because they think it fits their own personal religious beliefs doesn't mean it has no scientific validity. It only means some religious people happen to like this theory -which has no more bearing than the fact that atheists just love the theory of evolution for no other reason than the fact it rules out God. Atheists are so in love with that theory they will gloss over the fact this is a theory known to be seriously scientifically flawed. Yet still demand our kids taught to believe it is scientifically "proven". That makes them no less whackos than those who want kids taught creationism is scientifically proven fact.

The theory of intelligent design is not based on any religious doctrine and has been proposed by scientists in nearly every field of science as the best answer to explain only very specific, highly specific phenomena. Interestingly it has been proposed MORE often as we gained MORE scientific knowledge in the last 30 years -not less often as we gained more knowledge. And not once has it been proposed to try and explain everything by any scientist. Legitimate scientific theories are proposed to explain very specific phenomenon - but the theory of evolution was proposed to try and explain EVERYTHING. Different from ALL other scientific theories that have EVER been proposed before or since. Which it not only cannot do, but has already been proven to be badly flawed and does NOT explain what it proposes to explain. Even Darwin said THE only way to prove his theory was correct was through the fossil record -which he said IF he were correct, the bulk of which would be "in-between" species -of individuals showing one species in the process of turning into a completely different species. Except it doesn't. Not only are the bulk of fossils not "in-betweens", there isn't a single "in-between" that has ever been found. For ANY species. Zero. Every fossil ever found is a known, distinct species. Furthermore nearly every species that has ever existed or still exists today all showed up within about 10,000 years -a geologically extremely brief period of time. More than 120 times that length of time has passed since then without any "evolution" of one species turning into a totally different species. Only microevolution has occurred -changes within the species accumulated over time -but always remaining the same species. In addition, every geological period of time since then shows there are fewer species than the one right before it. That is the exact opposite of what the theory of evolution predicts -which says that each time period will have more diversification of life due to evolution and all those species branching off into totally new ones -and therefore MORE species in existence than the time period before it. But it doesn't. The period of time that had the greatest diversification of life was the Cambrian and there has been less and less ever since. Gee, when the FACTS contradict any other scientific theory, that is a pretty good clue the theory isn't correct after all, isn't it? Wonder what Darwin would do today with all this information he didn't have at the time when he was trying to explain EVERYTHING -now that reality shows his theory fails to do that.

One specific example where the theory of intelligent design has been proposed is what is for what is called "irreducibly complex systems". Suppose you had a mousetrap. It has a spring, the baseboard, the hook, the bait platform and the killing bar and whatever other parts are on mousetraps. Suppose you removed a part one at a time until you reached the point where removing ANY other part renders it a useless piece of junk and no longer a working mousetrap. THAT is the point where it becomes an irreducibly complex system.

The visual system is an irreducibly complex system. For most species it requires a minimum of 86 different chemical, hormonal, tissue and structural changes in the organism from central nervous tissue to changes in bone in order to have a functioning visual system. Remove even one of them and its just useless tissue.

The theory of evolution says the visual system came about by the slow accumulation of benign mutations until the final necessary change to whatever happened to still be missing just randomly and meaninglessly occurred and VOILA, two blind parents gave birth to offspring with fully functioning sight. The only problem is the fossil record shows it never happened this way. For ANY species. Fully functioning visual systems with all the necessary parts showed up intact and working -in thousands of unrelated species all at about the same geological period of time. The theory of intelligent design hypothesizes that the best answer for how it is possible for fully functioning visual systems to simultaneously show up in thousands of unrelated species is by means of intelligent design -that it couldn't happen by sheer chance that thousands of species all developed fully functioning visual systems that all showed at once and not in piecemeal fashion through long, slow accumulation of mutations as evolution theorizes. The odds this happened in thousands of species simultaneously as sheer random and meaningless CHANCE are so incredibly outrageously ludicrously high as to rule itself out as the most likely answer and make it among the very least likely answers. Just because you personally LIKE one theory more than another for your own personal reasons doesn't change the fact that the random, meaningless chance for the simultaneous appearance of fully functioning visual systems is actually among the least likely answers to explain that appearance.

The way any and all scientific theories are proven to be wrong or correct is the same -and the same way this one can be proven wrong. Scientists try to prove the theory WRONG. This is how science works. They can't do it by trying to prove it is correct -they can only prove it is correct by trying to find the situation or circumstance where it isn't true. If they fail to prove it is wrong in every conceivable circumstance, only over many, many years is it finally accepted to be scientific truth. Which is why the theory of evolution will always be called the theory of evolution and not scientific fact. They have already proven it to be NOT true in certain circumstances that the theory says it should be true and as a result cannot be scientific fact. The way to prove the theory of intelligent design is false is by finding a better and more likely answer for any one of the phenomena where it has been proposed. Which would also automatically throw that hypothesis into doubt for all the rest of them.

Now as for your so-called stupid ass "test" demanding God do what you want on your time schedule - I have a better and far more realistic one so you can try to prove YOUR beliefs about the origins of life, a belief that you hold with the same kind of religious zeal as any religious person -even though you have far less reason for it actually. In order for something to be "natural", it means it can be seen to occur in NATURE. In spite of man spending several thousand years now trying to prove that non-living materials can bestow life upon itself, it has never once been seen to occur in nature on this planet or anywhere else in the known universe. Not once. If this planet once had the ability for non-living materials to produce a living organism when we all know it is a scientific fact non-living materials have never, ever been seen to produce a living organism - it actually means there was nothing "natural" about it after all. An event that is never seen to happen in nature anywhere in the known universe can hardly be called "natural". Our planet didn't once upon a time have magical properties to produce living organisms from non-living materials that has since been lost never to be seen anywhere in the universe again -yet is still "natural" somehow. So I think those insisting it is still all "natural" even while never seen anywhere but at the very same time is all meaningless and random at the same time have the far greater burden of proof here. Show us all even ONE time where non-living materials produced a living organism. Just one. THAT is what you are insisting we all believe. Without any proof whatsoever and LOADS of evidence spanning eons that it doesn't. Since we all know it has never once been seen to ever happen, I don't have to prove it once upon a time didn't when it still doesn't today! Those demanding we all make a far greater leap of truly unfounded faith and at least pretend if we can't outright believe -that non-living materials once upon a time had the truly magical ability produce a living organism! And gee, exactly what species would that be anyway?

In fact, the theory this planet was seeded by aliens makes more sense than pretending non-living materials bestowed life on itself. But is a scientific fact it sure can't now. Which makes no sense given the fact the environment was FAR more hostile to life at the time it did appear on the planet compared to now. Surely non-living materials would be even more likely to start popping out little critters when today's environment is far more suitable to life than existed then. Insisting non-living materials can produce a living organism in spite of the fact it has never once been seen to ever occur anywhere is like insisting chaos can self organize -when the very definition of chaos is the lack of organization or ability to organize. But wait, evolutionary proponents also insist the universe self organized from chaos. But that definition defying event was also a randomly and meaninglessly and entirely NATURAL event as well. LOL What a dilemma you must pretend doesn't even exist at all when you are bound and determined to pretend something never seen to ever occur in nature at any time anywhere - is somehow still entirely "natural", huh. LOL

 

[Cecilie1200]

Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself.

Precisely what features, pray tell, are "best explained by an intelligent cause"? Be exact.

You mean you have no idea what features of the universe and living things are pointed to as examples of ID, and yet you feel qualified to not only comment on it, but dismiss it as "not scientific"? My, my.

Not my job to do your homework. I've already given you the correct definition you couldn't be bothered to find. Now get off your lazy ass and do the rest of it yourself.

Therefore, that means that your amino acid remark is irrelevant and unrelated, particularly since Intelligent Design, so far as I know, doesn't make any claims as to the method an intelligent designer would have used for creating amino acids. Awww, shucks.

Awww, so it's not science, but philosophy?

And you got THAT inference from where, precisely? Please highlight for me the point where I said that.

If you are not willing to research what you're talking about, then keep your remarks to yourself.

I mistakenly treated Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, not a religious philosophy.

My bad!

No, you mistakenly assumed you knew what ID was, and what science was, and that you could get a pass on it if you just sounded lofty.

That WAS your bad, because now you're busted. Come back when you have more to back your opinions up than attitude. I'm not impressed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Intelligent Design Studies

Republicans talk about including Intelligent Design Studies in today's curriculum, but I wonder, how can you assign homework if the answer is always, "Gawd did it"?

I wonder, how can you be so supercilious about something when you haven't even bothered to find out what it really is?

Oh, that's right. You're a leftist. 'Nuff said.

Then do tell us what ID is and how it isn't just creationism.

Already did that. Try to keep up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We could easily solve this Evolution/ID argument with the scientific method, by setting up an experiment to test the abilities of this intelligent designer. Let us put your God to the test, as we test every scientific theory.

How should we go about designing this experiment? Perhaps we could hypothesize that God can make living organisms out of nothing but molecular components? Then we could set up the Miller-Urey experiment, but rather than using electricity to form amino acids, we can wait for God to work his miracles. If, after say, a year, God does not assemble the molecules into amino acids, we can infer that God does not have the ability to make living organisms out of non-living components.

Deal?

God??? ID doesn't postulate god only that an intelligence is responsible for complex creation. Is that intelligence even hanging around to work your experiment? If the intelligent flying space monkeys are off in another part of the galaxy making complex life your experiment falls flat but not because ID is wrong. ID fails the scientific method test but it seems so do you...

Why is everyone pretending it's science then?

More doofuses pompously pronouncing on their incorrect assumption of what ID is, instead of actually finding out what it is. It must be nice to assume you know everything without first having to do the work of actually knowing something.

 

[Father Time]

Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself.

Precisely what features, pray tell, are "best explained by an intelligent cause"? Be exact.

You mean you have no idea what features of the universe and living things are pointed to as examples of ID, and yet you feel qualified to not only comment on it, but dismiss it as "not scientific"? My, my.

Not my job to do your homework. I've already given you the correct definition you couldn't be bothered to find. Now get off your lazy ass and do the rest of it yourself.

Hey if you can't prop up any evidence it's not our fault.

 

[Father Time]

I wonder, how can you be so supercilious about something when you haven't even bothered to find out what it really is?

Oh, that's right. You're a leftist. 'Nuff said.

Then do tell us what ID is and how it isn't just creationism.

Already did that. Try to keep up.

"Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself."

An intelligent designer, oh ok so it's basically creationism except the intelligent designer might be aliens (where the hell did the aliens come from? never says), and they get to claim it only did specific things.

Now since it's impossible to test or disprove that something was created by an intelligent being it's not science.

Unless you could provide us with some sort of experiment we could use to verify or falsify it.

 

[Father Time]

Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself.

Precisely what features, pray tell, are "best explained by an intelligent cause"? Be exact.

You mean you have no idea what features of the universe and living things are pointed to as examples of ID

Let me guess

bacteria falgellum

[youtube]RQQ7ubVIqo4[/youtube]


The eye

[youtube]Yj_lNQerUJ4[/youtube]

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution of the Avian Visual System

Integr. Comp. Biol. -- Sign In Page

Blood clotting

[youtube]4K_WrqNiQoU[/youtube]

Did I miss anything?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You misstate the theory of intelligent design which is NOT a theory that attempts to explain EVERYTHING -as the theory of evolution does.

:facepalm:


Evolution only explains evolution.

It has only been proposed as a theory by SCIENTISTS themselves for very specific phenomena for which they believe all other possible explanations have been ruled out. It is NOT the same thing as creationism which essentially just says God created it all.

'God done it'

'some god did it'


Sound the same to me.

The Bible is not a science book and was not intended to try and explain the natural world.

Explain that the the idiots who think it's real.

The theory of intelligent design is NOT religion based

Even Darwin said THE only way to prove his theory was correct was through the fossil record

:facepalm:

-which he said IF he were correct, the bulk of which would be "in-between" species -of individuals showing one species in the process of turning into a completely different species. Except it doesn't.

Let me google that for you

Not only are the bulk of fossils not "in-betweens", there isn't a single "in-between" that has ever been found.

You you incredibly ignorant, or just a liar?

More than 120 times that length of time has passed since then without any "evolution" of one species turning into a totally different species.

Google:Observed Speciation

One specific example where the theory of intelligent design has been proposed is what is for what is called "irreducibly complex systems".

Debunked numerous times.

Suppose you had a mousetrap. It has a spring, the baseboard, the hook, the bait platform and the killing bar and whatever other parts are on mousetraps. Suppose you removed a part one at a time until you reached the point where removing ANY other part renders it a useless piece of junk and no longer a working mousetrap. THAT is the point where it becomes an irreducibly complex system.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM&feature=PlayList&p=37F403D0D373650C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=56[/ame]

The visual system is an irreducibly complex system. For most species it requires a minimum of 86 different chemical, hormonal, tissue and structural changes in the organism from central nervous tissue to changes in bone in order to have a functioning visual system. Remove even one of them and its just useless tissue.

You're a fucking retard.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ&feature=related[/ame]

The theory of evolution says the visual system came about by the slow accumulation of benign mutations until the final necessary change to whatever happened to still be missing just randomly and meaninglessly occurred and VOILA, two blind parents gave birth to offspring with fully functioning sight.

Damn, you're stupid

In fact, the theory this planet was seeded by aliens makes more sense than pretending non-living materials bestowed life on itself

And where'd the aliens come from?

 

[Diuretic]

Okay then. Intelligent design isn't science because it doesn't follow the scientific method. And since its claims can't be falsified (Popper) then it fails our current definition of science.

From reading the thread it seems to me that ID is postulating that certain observed phenomena allow an inference that a creator outside of time and space itself is responsible for producing those phenomena. That inference can't be subjected to any sort of test so it has to remain as speculation.

When humans first became aware of themselves, perhaps realising that there were certain laws of the universe (though they mightn't have thought about it like that), they sought to explain these phenomena. For probably many thousands of years humans have a variety of metaphysical explanations for those phenomena. Early humans ascribed the phenomena to gods of various kinds. This is in keeping with the discovery of cause and effect which is possibly an early differentiation between humans and other animals. There's the effect, what caused it? Must be supernatural. The belief that gods could affect their lives caused those early humans to worship those assumed gods. The purpose of that worship was propitiation. Hence the concept of sacrifice to gods that seems to run through many belief systems. This evolved into the modern religions among humans today, though most are much, much more sophisticated than those early religions and some, especially the monotheistic religions, don't seek propitiation but personal salvation.

Before science humans believed that pure reason could explain the universe. It followed that pure reason could also prove the existence of God and that has been done for hundreds of years from Plato onwards.

But as far back as Aristotle, reason as the sole method of explanation of the universe and its phenomena began to be questioned. Science developed out of these early views that observation and induction can explain - and predict - the phenomena.

Since religion is, as well as a belief system, an explanatory system, it was threatened by science. This is seen particularly in Christian Europe. Thus there is an historical antipathy by religion towards science, it's a competitor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Diuretic: "From reading the thread it seems to me that ID is postulating that certain observed phenomena allow an inference that a creator outside of time and space itself is responsible for producing those phenomena. That inference can't be subjected to any sort of test so it has to remain as speculation."

Thank you. ID is philosophical; it cannot be tested scientifically. Thus, it must be debated in a class of humanities, philosophy, liberal arts, history of science, but never, ever in a biology classroom itself.

 

[amrchaos]

which brings me to my idea....

why don't we agree that religion is not science and science is not religion and that ne'er the tween shall meet.

But let us take a more critical look at this, and you will begin to understand why there exists such an intermingling of religion and science.

Religion dictates a perspective on how the universe behaves. Science records and documents this behavior.

If one contradicts the other in some fashion or form, we have a big ol' messy problem to sort out that leaves science and religion in bed together.


For example, let us talk about the underlining problem here--What is life? Before Dawrin proposed evolution, his main concern was what exactly was life(He failed to answer this question in a purely scientific manner. In fact, that question is not scientifically answerable at the moment!!) Studying this question led him to propose evolution, but his main concern was not addressed. So where do we turn to address this question--What is life.



Well Religion was sitting on a bar stool half drunk when it heard of evolution and saw BIG OL BAD SCIENCE encrouching on its turf. If science resolved what life actually was, what purpose it serves, and how to create it, Then religion is out on its narrow butt begging for Beers. Was it not bad enough to beg you to believe??!!??!! The science is an enemy of ignorance, and how can Belief exist without ignorance?? How can religion exist without belief??

No--science asks too many questions and these questions leads to too many results thus threatening a lucrative career in Theological studies!!! Thus religion must do what it can to bolster its own survival by crerating nonsensical theories to slow down scientific progress.

So first the theologues introduced Creationism--The scientific community questioned that concept to death.

Then they turned around and dressed it up as intelligent design--hoping that the scientist were arrogant enough to see it was a compliment to them and therefore abate their investigations. Now ID is sitting in some scientists fireplace used to toast marshmellows!!

What is next?? Is it Interdiminesional Activation? Was Life put into motion by some non-dimensional being from another plane. It did this because it was lonely?? See how loony that sounds!! Yet, every theologian will support this if it is to save their concept of the universe GOVERNED by a figment of their imagination. In fact, I may have just started the next wave of attack on Biology. Yes!! This is an attack on Biology, not all the science. Just remember, few religions are noted for their ability to heal people. The religious health technology is based in faith healings, snake oils and an assortment of dangerous hallucingens.

Religions role is in the realm of society. Not in the realm of pure science. Some Psuedo-Theologians have yet to realize this or worst refuse to!!

 

[eagleseven]

Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself.

Precisely what features, pray tell, are "best explained by an intelligent cause"? Be exact.

You mean you have no idea what features of the universe and living things are pointed to as examples of ID, and yet you feel qualified to not only comment on it, but dismiss it as "not scientific"? My, my.

As you are the self-appointed definitive source of ID theory in this thread, the burden is upon you. I'm waiting for you to present evidence that supports your theory.

Not my job to do your homework. I've already given you the correct definition you couldn't be bothered to find. Now get off your lazy ass and do the rest of it yourself.

I cannot find experiments that don't exist.

And you got THAT inference from where, precisely? Please highlight for me the point where I said that.

You state that ID makes no concrete claims about method, only that an "intelligent designer" exists, be he an alien, or a god.

We have not found any aliens, and there is no way to physically test any god. So, according to your definition, ID makes claims that are unverifiable...much like the words inside a fortune cookie.

I have no problem with you believing God created everything, but it belongs in Sunday School, not Biology class.

If you are not willing to research what you're talking about, then keep your remarks to yourself.

I mistakenly treated Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, not a religious philosophy.

My bad!

No, you mistakenly assumed you knew what ID was, and what science was, and that you could get a pass on it if you just sounded lofty.

That WAS your bad, because now you're busted. Come back when you have more to back your opinions up than attitude. I'm not impressed.

I will admit, every time I finally come to understand this "Intelligent Design" theory, someone changes the definition! How many versions of ID are there, anyways?

I assure you, I have a strong grasp of science. If you consider using the correct terminology "sounding lofty," I cannot help you.