Intelligent Design is Not Religion

[abu afak]

Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.
[....]

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

 

[BackAgain]

Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.
[....]

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

I’m not as preoccupied in defending your faith as you are. Your faith is that all things must be explainable by science and the rules of science. If we resort to the rules of science, we would be confronted with one of its premises: matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, resort to the rules of science breaks down when used to explain the “creation” of the universe.

For, if there was a condition pre-existing time/space/matter/energy, then everything had to have come from somewhere else. Scientists have come up with some incredible explanations for this, but the thing is, those explanations necessarily go beyond our rules of science. They are by strict definition “supernatural.” Not in the religious sense: in the literal sense of going beyond scientific laws.

You have a demonstrated propensity to attack all who challenge your claims. But I don’t believe you have any explanation consistent with scientific principles which answers that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is a religious belief.

That's stupid and wrong.

Your ID belief is a belief in magic. A primitive belief left over from a simpler time when we knew less.

 

[BackAgain]

This piece is kind of “dense” for us laypeople. But it’s informative: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

 

[abu afak]

I’m not as preoccupied in defending your faith as you are. Your faith is that all things must be explainable by science and the rules of science. If we resort to the rules of science, we would be confronted with one of its premises: matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, resort to the rules of science breaks down when used to explain the “creation” of the universe.

1. Definition/error and/or BS Spin.
Faith is belief withOut Evidence.
Your preDICKament not mine.
Evolution has overwhelming Evidence, god/s have none.,

For, if there was a condition pre-existing time/space/matter/energy, then everything had to have come from somewhere else. Scientists have come up with some incredible explanations for this, but the thing is, those explanations necessarily go beyond our rules of science. They are by strict definition “supernatural.” Not in the religious sense: in the literal sense of going beyond scientific laws.

2. We (the intelligent) and science have learned that assigning godS for what we don't understand/understand YET, has failed in EVERY instance in which he have a verdict. (Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc)
Are you able to say "I don't know/know yet"?
No.
'God of the Gaps'

You have a demonstrated propensity to attack all who challenge your claims. But I don’t believe you have any explanation consistent with scientific principles which answers that.

I have much better logic and all the facts on my side
Those I "attack," have none, just as in this case.

`

 

[BackAgain]

1. Definition/error and/or BS Spin.
Faith is belief withOut Evidence
Your preDICKament not mine.
Evolution has overwhelming Evidence, god/s have none.,



2. We (the intelligent) have learned that assigning godS for what we don't understand/understand YET, has failed in EVERY instance in which he have a verdict. (Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc)
Are you able to say "I don't know/know yet"?
No.
'God of the Gaps'



I have a much better logic and all the facts on my side
Those I "attack," have none, just as in this case.

`

Notice that I spoke about cosmology and Abu jumps to evolution. And notice that he did so immediately going ad hominem. Underscores the weakness of his position.

Babu is such a predictable thin-skinned little twerp, he apparently perceives any doubt about his pronouncements as an attack against him. Instead, all I posted was an actual fact. It is in FACT true that the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is (a) open to serious debate and is not itself a “fact” and (b) requires reliance on things which are, by definition, “supernatural.”

Instead of admitting this, the thin-skinned hack resorts to his trite “god of the gaps” crap. As usual.

Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

The field relies on a conceptual framework that has trouble accounting for new observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[abu afak]

Notice that I spoke about cosmology and Abu jumps to evolution. And notice that he did so immediately going ad hominem. Underscores the weakness of his position.

Babu is such a predictable thin-skinned little twerp, he apparently perceives any doubt about his pronouncements as an attack against him. Instead, all I posted was an actual fact. It is in FACT true that the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is (a) open to serious debate and is not itself a “fact” and (b) requires reliance on things which are, by definition, “supernatural.”

Instead of admitting this, the thin-skinned hack resorts to his trite “god of the gaps” crap. As usual.

Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

The field relies on a conceptual framework that has trouble accounting for new observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

That's it?
BlackAgain accused me of "faith."
A Lie.
I refuted that.
Same argument I made goes for origins of the Universe.
"We don't know/know yet," or you fabricating a god/s.

Gameover
still
`

 

[BackAgain]

That's it?
BlackAgain accused me of "faith."
A Lie.
I refuted that.
Same argument I made goes for origins of the Universe.
"We don't know/know yet," or you fabricating a god/s.

Gameover
still
`

With you the “game” is usually over before you suit up for it.

But you did get one thing right. We don’t know. What we think we understand about something like the Big Bang doesn’t explain where it came from. In order to address that, science posits things like quantum theories which suggest that “probabilities” (put in mathematical terms) allow for something to spontaneously emerge from nothing.

Yet, since nothing can preexisting itself and since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, the “scientific” explanation requires resort to something outside of science and natural law. By definition “supernatural.”

 

[abu afak]

With you the “game” is usually over before you suit up for it.

But you did get one thing right. We don’t know. What we think we understand about something like the Big Bang doesn’t explain where it came from. In order to address that, science posits things like quantum theories which suggest that “probabilities” (put in mathematical terms) allow for something to spontaneously emerge from nothing.

Yet, since nothing can preexisting itself and since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, the “scientific” explanation requires resort to something outside of science and natural law. By definition “supernatural.”

Maybe, maybe not
We don't know.
Lightning "came from nothing" so we made a god.
Lotsa things "came from nothing".. until we knew the something.
At best..
YOU are left with where god/s came from.
(Only your magic is allowed)
This gets old when l've seen thousands of 'yous.'
I have a thread start on this page somewhere.
"God of the Gaps"
read it or look up the term.
You're boring.

`

 

[BackAgain]

Maybe, maybe not
We don't know.
Lightning "came from nothing" so we made a god.
Lotsa things "came from nothing".. until we knew the something.
At best..
YOU are left with where god/s came from.
(Only your magic is allowed)
This gets old when l've seen thousands of 'yous.'
I have a thread start on this page somewhere.
"God of the Gaps"
read it or look up the term.
You're boring.

`

Your god of the gaps meme is quite stale.

And, no joke, you are the master of dull.

Yes, dipshit: people used to make shit up when they couldn’t discern a real cause for an effect. It turns out phlogiston isn’t the cause for fire. Congratulations for grasping that much. But there is a twist to the story which you remain far too stupid to handle:

Sometimes even our scientific answers or theories turnout to be wrong. Shocking for a numbnut such as you! But still true.

I return your now to your imagination wherein you are intelligent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sometimes even our scientific answers or theories turnout to be wrong.

Via more science...

Sometimes they are so well supported that they can safely be considered to be fact.

 

[abu afak]

Your god of the gaps meme is quite stale.

And, no joke, you are the master of dull.

Yes, dipshit: people used to make shit up when they couldn’t discern a real cause for an effect. It turns out phlogiston isn’t the cause for fire. Congratulations for grasping that much. But there is a twist to the story which you remain far too stupid to handle:

Sometimes even our scientific answers or theories turnout to be wrong. Shocking for a numbnut such as you! But still true.

I return your now to your imagination wherein you are intelligent.

That's your childish "No, Yo mama" response?
Let us know when you have ANY Evidence of this god/s.
Because the classic Fallacy "Argument from Ignorance" is NOT.
(picture this discussion 10,000 yrs ago using his 'logic' for the Lightning god.)

`

 

[BackAgain]

That's your childish "No, Yo mama" response?
Let us know when you have ANY Evidence of this god/s.
Because the classic Fallacy "Argument from Ignorance" is NOT.
(picture this discussion 10,000 yrs ago using his 'logic' for the Lightning god.)

`

I haven’t ever claimed that there is a God. Nor have I been so stupid as to deny the existence of God.

You’re very thin-skinned because you don’t like it when your abundant ignorance is exposed. And your pet meme, “glop of your clods,” is even duller than you are, babu.

 

[abu afak]

I haven’t ever claimed that there is a God. Nor have I been so stupid as to deny the existence of God.

You’re very thin-skinned because you don’t like it when your abundant ignorance is exposed. And your pet meme, “glop of your clods,” is even duller than you are, babu.

You claimed::
"Yet, since nothing can preexisting itself and since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, the “scientific” explanation requires resort to something outside of science and natural law.
By definition “supernatural.”

And that implies there is a god, and in fact is Not true IAC.
We do NOT know if the explanation is supernatural.
You can spin/twist/name-call, etc, but you are still one Big non sequitur.

`

 

[BackAgain]

You claimed::
"Yet, since nothing can preexisting itself and since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, the “scientific” explanation requires resort to something outside of science and natural law.
By definition “supernatural.”

And that implies there is a god, and in fact is Not true IAC.
We do NOT know if the explanation is supernatural.
You can spin/twist/name-call, etc, but you are still one Big non sequitur.

`

No. You’re still pretty fully stupid. In fact, I have been very clear that supernatural is literal. Meaning above and beyond scientific explanation. Since it is contrary to the basic rule of science, it has to be. But I also noted that “supernatural” does not necessarily mean divine.

Your tiny grasp of science and your insignificant intelligence get in the way of your ability to comprehend. You dope.

You lack even the ability to be honest.

 

[abu afak]

No. You’re still pretty fully stupid. In fact, I have been very clear that supernatural is literal. Meaning above and beyond scientific explanation. Since it is contrary to the basic rule of science, it has to be. But I also noted that “supernatural” does not necessarily mean divine.

Your tiny grasp of science and your insignificant intelligence get in the way of your ability to comprehend. You dope.

You lack even the ability to be honest.

AGAIN::: You are Wrong.

"".....IAC.
We do NOT know if the explanation is supernatural.
You can spin/twist/name-call, etc, but you are still one Big non sequitur.


`

 

[BackAgain]

AGAIN::: You are Wrong.

"".....IAC.
We do NOT know if the explanation is supernatural.
You can spin/twist/name-call, etc, but you are still one Big non sequitur.
`

Wrong again retard. Everything I said follows, logically. Your bleating makes no sense, babu.

 

[jehanne1431]

There is no celestial supernatural ghost designing anything. Its a blight on the human race to suggest it. You cannot say human life was designed when we can prove it was evolution. After physics and science everything is just ignorant opinion.
Dawkins is 100% correct. Natural selection is responsible for every living thing on this earth.
Not one god botherer can even tell exactly what date the earth was created, what did god use for it, what materials did he use for humans.
These are very basic questions and not one jesus junkie has the answers. Unless of course you do.

>> There is no celestial supernatural ghost designing anything. Its a blight on the human race to suggest it. You cannot say human life was designed when we can prove it was evolution. After physics and science everything is just ignorant opinion.

We have nothing in common, hence, what you call “reason” is highly subjective. When you cannot discern the evidence for God, then all the more your ideas lack total reason. Evolution I find so full of holes I won’t bother debating it. But if you think evolution occurred without an intelligent designer, well, you are deceived. There is no way DNA molecules just happen by chance. There is no way a bowl of primordial soup can turn into a human being with a rational mind and amazing biological chemistry just happens by chance. That, is not reason, that, is not science. that is agenda.

>> Dawkins is 100% correct. Natural selection is responsible for every living thing on this earth.

Dawkins makes a fool of himself. He admits it sure all looks like someone designed all this, but it is an illusion. Oh, please? When you see a painting, you cannot reason there had to be a painter? All the more when you look at the miracle of human life.

>>Not one god botherer can even tell exactly what date the earth was created, what did god use for it, what materials did he use for humans.

So what? All those questions are deal breakers or core to this debate. Pure reason and scientific facts makes your claim preposterous. I can produce ten observed miracles that no scientist has the slightest idea how those events could have occurred in the natural. So you people tend to ignore all that, so as to not disrupt your mission. Even though they all point to (read: prove) the Christian God is real.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I can produce ten observed miracles that no scientist has the slightest idea how those events could have occurred in the natural.

So what? Produce 1000, and you still will have produced NO EVIDENCE of magic.

Just because scientists do not yet have a proven explanation doesn't mean it was therefore magic, or a miracle.

And I bet all of your stories are more simply explained by hallucination or lies anyways.

People were declaring lightning to be magic, a couple centuries ago.

Turns out...it's not.

 

[jehanne1431]

So what? Produce 1000, and you still will have produced NO EVIDENCE of magic.

Just because scientists do not yet have a proven explanation doesn't mean it was therefore magic, or a miracle.

And I bet all of your stories are more simply explained by hallucination or lies anyways.

People were declaring lightning to be magic, a couple centuries ago.

Turns out...it's not.

"People were declaring lightning to be magic, a couple centuries ago." <<< When I read "defenses" like this from your kind, all that tells me is how desperate you are.

You dismiss miracles as empirical evidence because you have no other choice to keep the ruse going. I wish I could be of help, but since evidence and reason are of no value, I am out of ideas.