Creationism vs Intelligent Design?

[geauxtohell]

Some dupe just told me they're wicked different.

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

ID and Creationism are the same...

There are surely people who would disagree, but it's sorta like the variations in the innumerable facets of Leftism... they're irrelevant.

The fact is that Humanity didn't create the universe; which means something else did... and what ever that something is; that's God.

We don't know what it is; odds are we'll never know... so worrying about it pointless; suffice it to say that there is an intelligent force in nature which reigns vastly supreme over our existence... meaning that there is an ultimate authority in the Universe; and we're not it.

Which may or may not be true, but still can't fit into the constraints of the scientific method either way.

 

[Missourian]

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:

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

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.”

How does one test the origin of life on earth by the methods of science?

Any results?

 

[Missourian]

I just finished reading and article in Astronomy magazine where the National Academy of Sciences asked Francis Drake to attempt to mathematically quantify life in our galaxy. The result was Drake's Equation:

N = R* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc L​

That in itself petty well debunks the argument put forward in this thread that Intelligent Design is not science.

If one can mathematically prove the existence of extraterrestrial life under the umbrella of science, one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance...and the explore alternate theories under that same umbrella.

I would link to the article...but as far as I can find it is not available online yet.

 

[Dr Grump]

one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance...

1) Then go ahead and prove it..
2) If life is too complex to arise through chance what does that make the appearance of a God seem like?

 

[geauxtohell]

How does one test the origin of life on earth by the methods of science?

Any results?

Yes. Look up Miller and Urey and then follow the progression of abiogenesis. In fairness, abiogenesis is mostly theoretical. Evolution doesn't attempt to define the origins of life, just the aftermath.

Either way, you can discuss origins and run scientifically sound experiments to accept or recject hypothesis about the origins of life without evoking the flying spaghetti monster.

The result was Drake's Equation:

N = R* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc L

That in itself petty well debunks the argument put forward in this thread that Intelligent Design is not science.

You'll ahave to expand on that. I won't even pretend to know what that equation means and how it relates to ID.

If one can mathematically prove the existence of extraterrestrial life under the umbrella of science, one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance...and the explore alternate theories under that same umbrella.

Not really. That argument is what got Behe shredded at Dover. He called it "irreducible complexity".

Furthermore, when proposing a scientific argument, it's not sufficient to just to advocate for the null hypothesis. You have to formulate your own hypothesis that others can try and support or refute.

ID will never get anywhere if their only platform is arguing against evolution, without proposing an acceptable alternative.

Of course, since the Discovery Institute is a PAC first and foremost (and an institution of science second), they have shown little to no interest in research and publication.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If one can mathematically prove the existence of extraterrestrial life under the umbrella of science, one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance

The Drake Equation does no such thing, nor does anyone who knows a damned thing about the subject think it does.

 

[Father Time]

I just finished reading and article in Astronomy magazine where the National Academy of Sciences asked Francis Drake to attempt to mathematically quantify life in our galaxy. The result was Drake's Equation:

N = R* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc L​

That in itself petty well debunks the argument put forward in this thread that Intelligent Design is not science.

If one can mathematically prove the existence of extraterrestrial life under the umbrella of science, one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance

In order for something to be science it needs to be falsifiable i.e. there needs to be some conceivable way to prove it as false. There is no possible way to disprove the idea that a God made life and the animals and didn't leave a trace. Therefore it's not science.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I just finished reading and article in Astronomy magazine where the National Academy of Sciences asked Francis Drake to attempt to mathematically quantify life in our galaxy. The result was Drake's Equation:

N = R* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc L​

That in itself petty well debunks the argument put forward in this thread that Intelligent Design is not science.

If one can mathematically prove the existence of extraterrestrial life under the umbrella of science, one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance

In order for something to be science it needs to be falsifiable i.e. there needs to be some conceivable way to prove it as false. There is no possible way to disprove the idea that a God made life and the animals and didn't leave a trace. Therefore it's not science.

ROFL...

Talk about HUBRIS! And a CLASSIC example of anti-Religious faith.

Let me ask ya this FT...

Of all the knowledge which exist across the span of space-time... what percentage would you say that humanity possesses?

 

[Missourian]

one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance...

1) Then go ahead and prove it..



2) If life is too complex to arise through chance what does that make the appearance of a God seem like?

1) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities By William Dembski.

2) God, as the creator of the Universe, is not constrained by it. If God exists outside of time, what we would consider the normal rules of the four dimensional space-time would not apply.

I also just read Time Travel Revisited in Discover Magazine. There were some intriguing theories on closed timelike curves (fancy name for time travel) and it's affect on free will and the results of a universe where time was no longer an arrow pointing toward the future.

I started to write a post relating my thoughts on this and how it relates to religion...but it was just too difficult to convey without the common perspective of the article...which is available online here.

The Real Rules for Time Travelers | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine

It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around...being accustom to viewing time as a linear progression. But still, the idea that the linear flow of time allows free will while at the same time a view from outside time allows the future to be as concrete for the viewer as the past is for us sounds very much like the Biblical description of man's free will not being in conflict with God's omnipotent knowledge of the future.
​

 

[Dr Grump]

[

1) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities By William Dembski.

2) God, as the creator of the Universe, is not constrained by it. If God exists outside of time, what we would consider the normal rules of the four dimensional space-time would not apply.

I also just read Time Travel Revisited in Discover Magazine. There were some intriguing theories on closed timelike curves (fancy name for time travel) and it's affect on free will and the results of a universe where time was no longer an arrow pointing toward the future.

I started to write a post relating my thoughts on this and how it relates to religion...but it was just too difficult to convey without the common perspective of the article...which is available online here.

The Real Rules for Time Travelers | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine

It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around...being accustom to viewing time as a linear progression. But still, the idea that the linear flow of time allows free will while at the same time a view from outside time allows the future to be as concrete for the viewer as the past is for us sounds very much like the Biblical description of man's free will not being in conflict with God's omnipotent knowledge of the future.
​

1) If I ever find the title, I might read it.
2) Nice cop out...Everything had to come from somewhere, even a god. So you find it hard to believe empirical evidence that shows aspects of evolution, but a God just happened to be...all the time??

Interesting....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Of all the knowledge which exist across the span of space-time... what percentage would you say that humanity possesses?

Let me ask you this:

What is (X*Y/N)(z) where X,Y,N, and Z are unknown?

 

[Missourian]

I just finished reading and article in Astronomy magazine where the National Academy of Sciences asked Francis Drake to attempt to mathematically quantify life in our galaxy. The result was Drake's Equation:

N = R* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc L​

That in itself petty well debunks the argument put forward in this thread that Intelligent Design is not science.

If one can mathematically prove the existence of extraterrestrial life under the umbrella of science, one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance

In order for something to be science it needs to be falsifiable i.e. there needs to be some conceivable way to prove it as false. There is no possible way to disprove the idea that a God made life and the animals and didn't leave a trace. Therefore it's not science.

I see your point F.T. and I agree up to a point.

If your premise that He didn't leave any trace on his involvement proves true then you are absolutely correct.

The question is did God really not leave a trace...or are the traces there and we just haven't detected them yet.

Those scientists pursuing I.D. are the ones who are also searching for those traces.

 

[Father Time]

I just finished reading and article in Astronomy magazine where the National Academy of Sciences asked Francis Drake to attempt to mathematically quantify life in our galaxy. The result was Drake's Equation:

N = R* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc L​

That in itself petty well debunks the argument put forward in this thread that Intelligent Design is not science.

If one can mathematically prove the existence of extraterrestrial life under the umbrella of science, one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance

In order for something to be science it needs to be falsifiable i.e. there needs to be some conceivable way to prove it as false. There is no possible way to disprove the idea that a God made life and the animals and didn't leave a trace. Therefore it's not science.

ROFL...

Talk about HUBRIS! And a CLASSIC example of anti-Religious faith.

Let me ask ya this FT...

Of all the knowledge which exist across the span of space-time... what percentage would you say that humanity possesses?

So you think the only things that can be true are those that are scientific?

If you call something unscientific that doesn't mean it can't possibly be true it just can't be proven/shown evidence for, using science.

 

[Dr Grump]

I see your point F.T. and I agree up to a point.

If your premise that He didn't leave any trace on his involvement proves true then you are absolutely correct.

The question is did God really not leave a trace...or are the traces there and we just haven't detected them yet.

Those scientists pursuing I.D. are the ones who are also searching for those traces.

Let me ask you this - an oldie but a goodie - If a God exists, why not just reveal himself/herself?

It is such a simple thing to do and would certainly solve a lot of debates....

 

[Missourian]

I see your point F.T. and I agree up to a point.

If your premise that He didn't leave any trace on his involvement proves true then you are absolutely correct.

The question is did God really not leave a trace...or are the traces there and we just haven't detected them yet.

Those scientists pursuing I.D. are the ones who are also searching for those traces.

Let me ask you this - an oldie but a goodie - If a God exists, why not just reveal himself/herself?

It is such a simple thing to do and would certainly solve a lot of debates....

He did reveal himself through His Son.

We crucified Him.

Two thousand years later He continues to reveal Himself through His word.

Seek and ye shall find...knock and the door shall be opened to you.

 

[Dr Grump]

He did reveal himself through His Son.

We crucified Him.

Well, there's another whole debate right there.

I mean, now? Why not do it now? And why reveal yourself through your son? Why not just reveal yourself? And why at that point in history?

You do bring up some interesting points Miss, but I must say I really feel it is a cop-out when you say that a God is not open to the usual rules. He or she always was and is etc.

 

[Missourian]

He did reveal himself through His Son.

We crucified Him.

Well, there's another whole debate right there.

I mean, now? Why not do it now? And why reveal yourself through your son? Why not just reveal yourself? And why at that point in history?

You do bring up some interesting points Miss, but I must say I really feel it is a cop-out when you say that a God is not open to the usual rules. He or she always was and is etc.

That's fair Doc. I would likely feel the same way were our positions reversed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just finished reading and article in Astronomy magazine where the National Academy of Sciences asked Francis Drake to attempt to mathematically quantify life in our galaxy. The result was Drake's Equation:

N = R* Fp Ne Fl Fi Fc L​

That in itself petty well debunks the argument put forward in this thread that Intelligent Design is not science.

If one can mathematically prove the existence of extraterrestrial life under the umbrella of science, one can prove mathematically that life is too complex to arise through chance...and the explore alternate theories under that same umbrella.

I would link to the article...but as far as I can find it is not available online yet.

Life did not arise by mere chance. Natural selection is not chance.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I see your point F.T. and I agree up to a point.

If your premise that He didn't leave any trace on his involvement proves true then you are absolutely correct.

The question is did God really not leave a trace...or are the traces there and we just haven't detected them yet.

Those scientists pursuing I.D. are the ones who are also searching for those traces.

Let me ask you this - an oldie but a goodie - If a God exists, why not just reveal himself/herself?

It is such a simple thing to do and would certainly solve a lot of debates....

10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'

It's supposed to be confusing so you go to hell.

 

[rdean]

Hey, whatever happened to Gawd. Haven't seen much of him lately. No more "frogs from the sky" or "kill the first born"?

Worse, the people who say he talks them turn out to be certifiably "loony".