Intelligent Design Studies

[eagleseven]

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?

 

[Shogun]

if only..

 

[amrchaos]

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!!

 

[rdean]

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?

First, you have to get a hold of Gawd. Send his number and I'll call.

 

[amrchaos]

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!!)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

First, you have to get a hold of Gawd. Send his number and I'll call.

Her number is 666-001-1000. Mention my name, DevNell, and she'll pick up from the answering machine.

send her my regards.
d.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A defense of ID from an infamous Boston area conservative:

[If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism, the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren't. Unlike creationism, which denied the earth's ancient age or that biological forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation, is the acid test of scientific validity.

In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears, researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science.

The timeless truth of creation - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is [email protected].

from some blog...too funny...

/carbon_dating_proves/
February 05, 2006
Carbon dating proves nothing…

As a scientist I am happy to uphold a well tested theory until such time arrives that proof arises to contradict it, and in doing so develop a more accurate theory. This does mean that every now and then I have to admit I was wrong and adjust my belief system to accommodate this new evidence. It was while researching for my current final year project on evolution that I stumbled across such a piece of mind blowing evidence that shattered a belief I had held for years.

I now maintain that clowns are not the scariest thing I have ever seen.

They are now a close second to creationist websites.

 

[rdean]

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"?

 

[FactFinder]

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!!)

The missing piece is creating the stuff that you reverse engineer in the 1st place. One can manipulate genes and still have only a bit part.

and that is but one creature in a very vast universe. Don't see it happening any time soon.

 

[Diuretic]

In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears, researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science.

This paragraph confuses me. The author seems to be putting the position that ID is just a rehash of the argument from design. Fair enough. The argument from design is about reason, not science. Then he goes on to argue it's science. I need to be enlightened because I don't understand this.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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?

First, you have to get a hold of Gawd. Send his number and I'll call.

I don't think Mr Hawking answers his phone.

 

[rdean]

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.

Oh I know what "magical creation" is. It's, well, "magical".

Behe, the guy who coined the phrase, "Irreducible Complexity", on the witness stand, in Dover, under oath, said that using the same criteria that make "ID" a "science" would also make "astrology and alchemy" sciences.

WHAT'S YOUR SIGN??????????????

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears, researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science.

This paragraph confuses me. The author seems to be putting the position that ID is just a rehash of the argument from design. Fair enough. The argument from design is about reason, not science. Then he goes on to argue it's science. I need to be enlightened because I don't understand this.

ID and Creationism both are not science. They cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method. They belong to the realm of liberal arts, philosophy, comparative religions. Any who posits they are somehow scientific simply do not understand science.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A defense of ID from an infamous Boston area conservative:

[If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism, the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren't. Unlike creationism, which denied the earth's ancient age or that biological forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation, is the acid test of scientific validity.

In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears, researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science.

The timeless truth of creation - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is [email protected].

from some blog...too funny...

/carbon_dating_proves/
February 05, 2006
Carbon dating proves nothing…

As a scientist I am happy to uphold a well tested theory until such time arrives that proof arises to contradict it, and in doing so develop a more accurate theory. This does mean that every now and then I have to admit I was wrong and adjust my belief system to accommodate this new evidence. It was while researching for my current final year project on evolution that I stumbled across such a piece of mind blowing evidence that shattered a belief I had held for years.

I now maintain that clowns are not the scariest thing I have ever seen.

They are now a close second to creationist websites.

Ooh, quoting what a liberal newspaper says that ID supporters believe. Well, THAT should certainly settle it.

Tell me, do you also call the DNC to find out what the Republican candidate's platform is, dumbass?

 

[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.

Oh I know what "magical creation" is. It's, well, "magical".

Behe, the guy who coined the phrase, "Irreducible Complexity", on the witness stand, in Dover, under oath, said that using the same criteria that make "ID" a "science" would also make "astrology and alchemy" sciences.

WHAT'S YOUR SIGN??????????????

Wow, a non-answer. From you. My mind boggles at the astronomical odds of THAT happening.

 

[eagleseven]

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.