Intelligent Design Studies

[Hawkins]

The point is, in case that humans are created by God and science excludes God outside its theories, which simply means science can never find the truth.

If it is said science has to exclude God as a factor in the field of science, then science is not the way to seek out the truth of God. ID is one of the theory to fill up that space.

If it is said that ID and creationism cannot be falsified, ToE by far cannot be falsified scientifically at the moment, as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But ID and Creationism are not science, therefore they cannot be part of a science class. Capiche?

 

[Smartt33]

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.

So, in your opinion, God could not create something from nothing unless it could be proven by science that He did it?

Of course it is possible for the God that is spoken of in the Bible, if He exists, to have done just that, and it is also possible that science cannot prove how that thing came into being.

Just because ID cannot be proven (as in creation connected to God, or some superior being) doesn't mean it is not true.

You cannot, and science has not proven how man began. There is NO proven scientific, direct connection between man and another critter that became man.

Science says it is not about proving how anything came into existance, so why do they worry about religion being interested in that? I think it is because if creation was proven, much of what science says it has proven would be debunked.

Science is a very good and productive thing. It has impacted all of mankind. Why is religion seemingly such a threat to it?

ID makes sense. ID picks up where science doesn't want to go. They can work together.

 

[frazzledgear]

Actually, a good Intel Design study would be one of reverse engineering and reproducing similiar copies of a species in a lab. Understand, IntelD tends to incorporate a bit of immorality into it. If you create a lifeform, are you therefore its God??

(Hey parents, think of your kids worshiping you as some great Deity!! No more back talking or lying If you are able to indoctrinate the kiddies!!)

ID, is silly. Post a few of their arguments along side a critique and you'll get gibberish and biblical quotes in return from ID's followers.

You are obviously confusing creationism with the theory of intelligent design. They are NOT one and the same and the fact creationists happen to like this theory for their own personal reasons doesn't impart any less credibility to it than it gives the theory of evolution more credibility only because atheists love the fact it eliminates God. Whether a theory is liked by the religious or liked by atheists, disliked by the religious or disliked by atheists -has no bearing on it. Gee that didn't work out too well for us the last time we threw out scientific theories for non-scientific reasons but only based on whether the religious or non-religious happened to like how it fit in with or contradicted their own personal (non)religious beliefs. You'd think we would have learned that lesson by now but we have not.

The theory of intelligent design is not creationism but those intent on discrediting the theory as if it has no scientific legitimacy and no scientific justification for it deliberately mix them for their own agenda. If you can pretend it is just creationism under another name, then you can insist there is no reason whatsoever to even bother finding out WHO proposed it (scientist versus preacher), what it is, what specific phenomenon it attempts to explain, why it does and using sound scientific principles, determine if the theory is a scientifically sound theory for that specific phenomenon or not.

Do you really not understand how scientists are able to detect design? Do you think when they think they have detected design in a studied phenomenon they should pretend they didn't? An example that requires no specialized education to spot design - suppose you landed on this planet, managed to avoid seeing any human beings and came across Mount Rushmore. What would tell you it was produced by design and not as the result of environmental exposure? How about if you came across the ruins of Mount Rushmore 2000 years from now? Would scientists still be able to determine it was the result of design, what part of the ruins were due to exposure and natural events and which parts were due to design and not chance? How would they go about making those determinations? One of the basic principles of science is that if you know the cause of a specific phenomenon and then see another similar one, it is far more likely to have occurred by means of the same cause and not as the result of a totally different one. It is the way scientists are able to determine that marks in a rock were caused by water erosion while other marks were caused by being randomly struck with an object and yet still other marks were due to being deliberately struck with purpose and design. Without that primary scientific principle that allows scientists to recognize and understand the causes of all sorts of phenomena in this universe, further discoveries in science -indeed, being able to determine the cause for just about any phenomenon not personally witnessed by a credible witness -would be impossible. Recognizing and detecting design is no less critically necessary for a scientist than being able to recognize and detect randomness.

It is by adhering to sound scientific principles the theory of intelligent design with regard to just a few very specific phenomena was even proposed. And it actually requires abandoning sound scientific principles to pretend the theory of evolution has any scientific credibility. In spite of the theory insisting that over time one species turns into another, not a single fossil has ever been found of ANY "in-between" showing one species in the process of turning into a different species - for ANY species. Making it hard to pretend it happened anyway. We already know for a fact that the only way for a life to appear is to be produced by another life. Never by means of inanimate, non-living materials. I don't care how much you personally want to BELIEVE non-living materials can produce a living organism, we know for a scientific fact the only way for a life to appear is to be produced by another life. So insisting -as the theory of evolution does -that non-living materials once possessed this "magical" quality but then lost it, never EVER to be seen again under any circumstances natural or unnatural anywhere in the known universe -actually sounds pretty stupid to more than a few scientists.

Amrchaos's silly comments only proves the lack of understanding about what is and is not involved in the theory of intelligent design in the first place. If you create a living organism in the lab it still wouldn't make you a god. If scientists were able to manipulate non-living materials to produce a living organism -then that life was produced as the result of DESIGN and not as the result of a meaningless, random event. We know the only way to produce a life is by means of another life -so it would only prove it requires intelligent design to produce one from non-living materials and if anything, only reinforce the fact non-living materials never produce a living organism on its own. Making an assumption that if we can manipulate materials to produce a living organism means it can happen on its own in nature would be a MAJOR scientific blunder because it makes no more sense than insisting because we can manipulate materials into a fully functioning computer means a fully functioning computer can arise on its own out of a scrap heap. Do you REALLY believe that one is possible too? LOL

 

[eagleseven]

And it actually requires abandoning sound scientific principles to pretend the theory of evolution has any scientific credibility. In spite of the theory insisting that over time one species turns into another, not a single fossil has ever been found of ANY "in-between" showing one species in the process of turning into a different species - for ANY species.

Logical Fallacies: Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

we know for a scientific fact the only way for a life to appear is to be produced by another life.

We know the only way to produce a life is by means of another life

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

 

[Father Time]

Frazzledgear why are you repeating the lie that we found no transitional fossils? We found a ton.

[youtube]O4GdZOlPrX8[/youtube]
[youtube]XUcB_HiCKnM[/youtube]

Hell check out the pictures you find just by googling transitional fossils

transitional fossils - Google Search

 

[Father Time]

Never by means of inanimate, non-living materials. I don't care how much you personally want to BELIEVE non-living materials can produce a living organism, we know for a scientific fact the only way for a life to appear is to be produced by another life. So insisting -as the theory of evolution does -that non-living materials once possessed this "magical" quality but then lost it, never EVER to be seen again under any circumstances natural or unnatural anywhere in the known universe -actually sounds pretty stupid to more than a few scientists.

The theory of evolution makes no claims as to the origin of life. None nada, zip. Please stop pretending it does.

 

[JD_2B]

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?

The problem with this is that for every natural law of physics, there is a counterpart, which is considered "super"natural.

Do you believe in the existence of antimatter?

While antimatter does not exist on Earth, it does exist in other parts of the universe. In fact, it is partially attributed to the creation of the universe.

It is also one of science's biggest mysteries.. On Earth, the only way we can observe it's existence is by observing it in a lab, during the annihilation points with actual matter.

You should read "Angels and Demons"- the science behind creating antimatter and re-constructing the environment that existed before the big bang, and at the time of the big bang, even, is all very exact and being studied as we speak by CERN laboratories, by creating antihydrogen, during the PS210 Experiment. This was repeated at the Fermilab in the E862 Experiment, as well. In 2002, Cern laboratories figured out how to cool and capture the antihydrogen, and store it in penning traps, which use magnetic technology to keep the antihydrogen from annihilating the trap.

Now, these results are just the newest in what will inevitably be a series of recreations of the beginning of time, but the point to it all is that it CAN be proven and has been proven that every law of physics we have, has a counterpart.

Creationists argue that we can't get something (matter) from nothing (pure energy).. And they are right.

PS- It is a bit silly to expect God (an energy force, I would assume) or anyone to cause anything to happen without the use of energy. All action requires some level of energy for that action to complete.
=)

 

[Diuretic]

ID isn't science. As has been pointed out, it shouldn't be taught as science. I have no problem with it being taught in a philosophy class though, it's an interesting idea and it bears examination. But it ain't science.

 

[MajikMyst]

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?

The problem with this is that for every natural law of physics, there is a counterpart, which is considered "super"natural.

Do you believe in the existence of antimatter?

While antimatter does not exist on Earth, it does exist in other parts of the universe. In fact, it is partially attributed to the creation of the universe.

It is also one of science's biggest mysteries.. On Earth, the only way we can observe it's existence is by observing it in a lab, during the annihilation points with actual matter.

You should read "Angels and Demons"- the science behind creating antimatter and re-constructing the environment that existed before the big bang, and at the time of the big bang, even, is all very exact and being studied as we speak by CERN laboratories, by creating antihydrogen, during the PS210 Experiment. This was repeated at the Fermilab in the E862 Experiment, as well. In 2002, Cern laboratories figured out how to cool and capture the antihydrogen, and store it in penning traps, which use magnetic technology to keep the antihydrogen from annihilating the trap.

Now, these results are just the newest in what will inevitably be a series of recreations of the beginning of time, but the point to it all is that it CAN be proven and has been proven that every law of physics we have, has a counterpart.

Creationists argue that we can't get something (matter) from nothing (pure energy).. And they are right.

PS- It is a bit silly to expect God (an energy force, I would assume) or anyone to cause anything to happen without the use of energy. All action requires some level of energy for that action to complete.
=)

Ummm... You need to brush up on your science.. Not only does antimatter exist.. science is looking at ways to use it..

Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please start watching the science channel a little more often.. As for Angels and Demons?? That wasn't science it was a movie.. Science has already found ways to produce antimatter artificially..

As for ID? There is no science behind it and no theories.. It is a creationists attempt to push creationism onto children and force schools to teach religion.. ID is not science..

 

[JD_2B]

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?

The problem with this is that for every natural law of physics, there is a counterpart, which is considered "super"natural.

Do you believe in the existence of antimatter?

While antimatter does not exist on Earth, it does exist in other parts of the universe. In fact, it is partially attributed to the creation of the universe.

It is also one of science's biggest mysteries.. On Earth, the only way we can observe it's existence is by observing it in a lab, during the annihilation points with actual matter.

You should read "Angels and Demons"- the science behind creating antimatter and re-constructing the environment that existed before the big bang, and at the time of the big bang, even, is all very exact and being studied as we speak by CERN laboratories, by creating antihydrogen, during the PS210 Experiment. This was repeated at the Fermilab in the E862 Experiment, as well. In 2002, Cern laboratories figured out how to cool and capture the antihydrogen, and store it in penning traps, which use magnetic technology to keep the antihydrogen from annihilating the trap.

Now, these results are just the newest in what will inevitably be a series of recreations of the beginning of time, but the point to it all is that it CAN be proven and has been proven that every law of physics we have, has a counterpart.

Creationists argue that we can't get something (matter) from nothing (pure energy).. And they are right.

PS- It is a bit silly to expect God (an energy force, I would assume) or anyone to cause anything to happen without the use of energy. All action requires some level of energy for that action to complete.
=)

Ummm... You need to brush up on your science.. Not only does antimatter exist.. science is looking at ways to use it..

Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please start watching the science channel a little more often.. As for Angels and Demons?? That wasn't science it was a movie.. Science has already found ways to produce antimatter artificially..

As for ID? There is no science behind it and no theories.. It is a creationists attempt to push creationism onto children and force schools to teach religion.. ID is not science..

Holy crap.. Do you even bother to read people's posts before you respond to them??? I just ASKED you if you knew about this bit of science which PROVES that energy alone can create matter.

PS- The particle physics experiments and discoveries by CERN as described in Angels and Demons (the movie was based on the novel.. for those of us who read for comprehension, it is much better than the movie) is real. The story of the illuminati attacking the Vatican was the fictional part- but the science behind antimatter is very real, as you obviously know, and choose to ignore.

I also do not think that creationism should be taught exclusively in schools, and certainly not in public schools, without scientific fact/ studies to back it up. But the fact remains that even the big bang is not entirely explainable from the moment the first matter appeared, without allowing for some energy force to be present to cause such an event to occur.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that some people are so full of themselves to think that Earthlings (or humans) are the most intelligent or the only intelligent life forms in the universe. There is no science to prove that, either. In fact, there are a lot of reasons to believe that we are not alone in the universe..

I also believe that it is 100% impossible for even the most delusional insane person to dream up a higher being, if a higher being could not possibly exist. It is possible for someone to dream up purple elephants that fly, even though that is impossible- it is possible to imagine it. Elephants exist, purple exists, and birds fly. It is possible to put these three real concepts together and form an impossible delusion from that. It is not possible to dream up a place called heaven or hell, or a supernatural being who, for all any of us knows, lives in the clouds or out in space, etc.

The science is on it's way towards answering these questions for us, though.. I think that you know that. Honestly, if you had any objectivity whatsoever in regards to this issue, you would simply stay open minded that science obviously CAN continue to give us the answers to these questions and fill in whatever blanks you need to fully understand the origins of life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, in your opinion, God could not create something from nothing unless it could be proven by science that He did it?

Of course it is possible for the God that is spoken of in the Bible, if He exists, to have done just that, and it is also possible that science cannot prove how that thing came into being.

Just because ID cannot be proven (as in creation connected to God, or some superior being) doesn't mean it is not true.

You cannot, and science has not proven how man began. There is NO proven scientific, direct connection between man and another critter that became man.

Science says it is not about proving how anything came into existance, so why do they worry about religion being interested in that? I think it is because if creation was proven, much of what science says it has proven would be debunked.

Science is a very good and productive thing. It has impacted all of mankind. Why is religion seemingly such a threat to it?

ID makes sense. ID picks up where science doesn't want to go. They can work together.

But not in the science classroom by your very own point. Put ID and Creationism in the philosophy classroom where they belong.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

ID belongs in the church of scientology

 

[Smartt33]

So, in your opinion, God could not create something from nothing unless it could be proven by science that He did it?

Of course it is possible for the God that is spoken of in the Bible, if He exists, to have done just that, and it is also possible that science cannot prove how that thing came into being.

Just because ID cannot be proven (as in creation connected to God, or some superior being) doesn't mean it is not true.

You cannot, and science has not proven how man began. There is NO proven scientific, direct connection between man and another critter that became man.

Science says it is not about proving how anything came into existance, so why do they worry about religion being interested in that? I think it is because if creation was proven, much of what science says it has proven would be debunked.

Science is a very good and productive thing. It has impacted all of mankind. Why is religion seemingly such a threat to it?

ID makes sense. ID picks up where science doesn't want to go. They can work together.

But not in the science classroom by your very own point. Put ID and Creationism in the philosophy classroom where they belong.

I don't care where you put it, to ignore it would be foolish. I personally believe ID, but I believed in God first.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

IF that were true. It isn't. I stated my position on the subject, which is that it's not my job to provide the education and research you should have gotten before you came prancing in here, shooting off your mouth.

I already know what I'm talking about. Get back to me when your lazy ass catches up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Last I heard, career Darwin apologist Richard Dawkins accepts the idea of aliens seeding life onto this planet as a possibility, so long as he can view it as ruling out God. Talk to HIM about how stupid that possibility is.

Had you bothered to research ID before traipsing in here to display your "vast knowledge" of how wrong it is, you would know what the arguments are in favor of it being viewed as science. Once again, it is not my job or responsibility to conduct classes on the subject for your benefit, and I choose not to do so. Come back when you've done your homework.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

You should know whether or not you missed anything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.


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











:facepalm:




Let me google that for you


You you incredibly ignorant, or just a liar?



Google:Observed Speciation


Debunked numerous times.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM&feature=PlayList&p=37F403D0D373650C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=56]YouTube - disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap[/ame]





You're a fucking retard.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ&feature=related]YouTube - Dawkins Makes an Eye[/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?

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? I've seen you do better, so this is really disappointing.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

Last I heard, career Darwin apologist Richard Dawkins

WTF is a 'Darwin apologist'?

accepts the idea of aliens seeding life onto this planet as a possibility

And? He said that, hypothetically, it's not impossible. What's your point? He also pointed out that one must then asks where the aliens came from, so you end up right back where you started.

Did you ever bother reading any of his books?

Come back when you've done your homework.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

That someone who says '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.' should be telling nobody else to do their homework.