Santorum 2002 on intelligent design

[Leweman]

Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe that a massive amount of energy came from nowhere and exploded into matter.

Wrong. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Do elaborate.

 

[chikenwing]

Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe that a massive amount of energy came from nowhere and exploded into matter.

Wrong. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

Nothing?? really?? isn't the very base of the idea??

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

Evolution has mountains of evidence, intelligent design does not.

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

Indeed... I thoroughly believe these folks suffering from some severe mental trauma. They make up the weirdest shit, and then talk about God as a silly superstition.. yet mother ships and special universes makes perfect sense.

They're nuts.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe that a massive amount of energy came from nowhere and exploded into matter.

Wrong. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

Nothing?? really?? isn't the very base of the idea??

Don't bother discussing science with a libtard... they subscribe to green cults and their supreme leader is Al Gore.

 

[Dragon]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design

Wrong. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is not. A theory is a complex structure of hypotheses with broad explanatory powers capable of making falsifiable predictions and hence having scientific merit. Intelligent design does not fit that description, has no scientific merit whatsoever, is pseudoscience from first to last, and does not deserve to be called a "theory."

NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

A theory by nature CAN'T be proven. It is too broad and complex for that. This is true not only of the theory of evolution but also of the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and many other theories in science.

While it is not possible to PROVE a theory (and hence no such proof is to be looked for), it is possible to DISPROVE the theory, and the theory stands accepted until it is disproven or until a better theory is developed. The problem with intelligent design is that it can't be disproven -- no falsifiable predictions can be made on the basis of it -- and therefore it is non-science.

 

[Dragon]

Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe that a massive amount of energy came from nowhere and exploded into matter.

Wrong. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

Nothing?? really?? isn't the very base of the idea??

Nope. You're confusing evolution with cosmology and the Big Bang, which is a completely different subject.

The origin of life also has nothing to do with evolution, another common confusion.

 

[BlindBoo]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

Evolution, as a theory, is much more developed than ID.

I like Larry Nevin's ID worlds however.

 

[Leweman]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design

Wrong. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is not. A theory is a complex structure of hypotheses with broad explanatory powers capable of making falsifiable predictions and hence having scientific merit. Intelligent design does not fit that description, has no scientific merit whatsoever, is pseudoscience from first to last, and does not deserve to be called a "theory."

NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

A theory by nature CAN'T be proven. It is too broad and complex for that. This is true not only of the theory of evolution but also of the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and many other theories in science.

While it is not possible to PROVE a theory (and hence no such proof is to be looked for), it is possible to DISPROVE the theory, and the theory stands accepted until it is disproven or until a better theory is developed. The problem with intelligent design is that it can't be disproven -- no falsifiable predictions can be made on the basis of it -- and therefore it is non-science.

So what you're really saying is that Religion is a THEORY in scientific terms ... why can't it be disproved? If there were evidence to disprove it then it COULD be disproved.

 

[chikenwing]

There are multitudes of people that believe in evolution and intelligent design. There is plenty of room for both and nether is exclusive of the other.

Looking at it pragmatically,what are the odds that life could just on its own by chance ,be created,teach its self to survive ,then how to reproduce its self,let alone mutate into the mind numbing number of creatures that are and have been.Those have to be some really large numbers.

 

[Dragon]

So what you're really saying is that Religion is a THEORY in scientific terms ... why can't it be disproved? If there were evidence to disprove it then it COULD be disproved.

LOL hardly. How can you find proof that (for example) God does not exist? Or the human soul? Or life after death? It's not just that we lack evidence, we can't even say what evidence proving these nonexistences would even look like.

And that's why none of these ideas constitutes science.

 

[Leweman]

Wrong. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

Nothing?? really?? isn't the very base of the idea??

Nope. You're confusing evolution with cosmology and the Big Bang, which is a completely different subject.

The origin of life also has nothing to do with evolution, another common confusion.

can't separate the two, as the two build on each other.

 

[BluePhantom]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

Evolution has mountains of evidence, intelligent design does not.

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

Well I have made this argument many times. If string and M-theory are so easily accepted why is it that a creator is so easily dismissed? Mathematics is often the answer but there is a point where even math ceases to be black and white and begins to delve into the philosophical. The Susskind vs. Hawking battle regarding black holes is a perfect example.

Now I am not going to try and bullshit anyone. My understand of physics and quantum mechanics is more practical than mechanical: what I mean is I understand the effects and implications but the actual mathematics are over my head. Luckily, my brother is a theoretical physicist so i have the luxury of bouncing my crazy ideas about the structure of the universe off him and his colleagues. What they have told me (these men of science who are resolute in their scientific perspective) is that religion is suddenly not so crazy after all. M-theory has the potential to unite theoretical physics, philosophy, and religion into a single discipline.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution has mountains of evidence, intelligent design does not.

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

Indeed... I thoroughly believe these folks suffering from some severe mental trauma. They make up the weirdest shit, and then talk about God as a silly superstition.. yet mother ships and special universes makes perfect sense.

They're nuts.

I don't think they're nut...there are many religious scientists, but there is an element (pun intended) within their group that truly resents religious folks.

David Berlinski, in "The Devil's Delusion," explains the resentment as follows:

Despite the immense ideological power that the American scientific establishment wields, it still resents the stature of organized religion. On crucial matters of faith and morals, which loom so large in the lives of most individuals, they take a back seat. Members of the National Academy of Sciences are by a large majority persuaded that there is no God; men and women by the millions that there is.

 

[Dragon]

There are multitudes of people that believe in evolution and intelligent design. There is plenty of room for both and nether is exclusive of the other.

Well, of course -- you're free to believe any kind of crap you want, and thanks to the First Amendment, you're even free to try to get others to believe it. However, what we're discussing is proper curriculum for a science class in school. Anything taught in science class must be science. No matter how many people believe in it, intelligent design isn't science and should never be taught in a science class, period.

Looking at it pragmatically,what are the odds that life could just on its own by chance ,be created

Please note what I said above about the origin of life having nothing to do with evolution. It doesn't. Really, I don't see how you can have an informed opinion on the subject at all if you don't know what evolution even IS, and clearly you don't.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe that a massive amount of energy came from nowhere and exploded into matter. This matter became chemicals. These chemicals somehow combined to form living things like bacteria and other cells developed to form the millions and millions of multi-system organisms that exist today. (simplistically speaking of course) I'm not saying i believe in intelligent design but to say you believe in what I just described but to think intelligent design is stupid, sounds pretty stupid in itself, too. I don't think humans are anywhere capable of comprehending what the deal is right now.

None of that has anything to do with "evolution". Abiogenesis is an entirely different science.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GuyPinestra]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design

Wrong. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is not. A theory is a complex structure of hypotheses with broad explanatory powers capable of making falsifiable predictions and hence having scientific merit. Intelligent design does not fit that description, has no scientific merit whatsoever, is pseudoscience from first to last, and does not deserve to be called a "theory."

NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

A theory by nature CAN'T be proven. It is too broad and complex for that. This is true not only of the theory of evolution but also of the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and many other theories in science.

While it is not possible to PROVE a theory (and hence no such proof is to be looked for), it is possible to DISPROVE the theory, and the theory stands accepted until it is disproven or until a better theory is developed. The problem with intelligent design is that it can't be disproven -- no falsifiable predictions can be made on the basis of it -- and therefore it is non-science.

You must've missed this earlier.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

 

[Dragon]

Nothing?? really?? isn't the very base of the idea??

Nope. You're confusing evolution with cosmology and the Big Bang, which is a completely different subject.

The origin of life also has nothing to do with evolution, another common confusion.

can't separate the two, as the two build on each other.

Nonsense, of course the two can be separated, and in science they ARE separated. The origin of energy and matter isn't even part of the same general field of science as evolution. The origin of the universe is part of speculative cosmological physics, while evolution is part of biology.

Nor is evolution in any way logically dependent on the idea of the Big Bang. However matter and energy began, it has the nature we observe it to have, and evolution flows (in part) from that. But if the idea of the Big Bang turns out to be false, that won't have any impact on evolution at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design

Wrong. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is not. A theory is a complex structure of hypotheses with broad explanatory powers capable of making falsifiable predictions and hence having scientific merit. Intelligent design does not fit that description, has no scientific merit whatsoever, is pseudoscience from first to last, and does not deserve to be called a "theory."



A theory by nature CAN'T be proven. It is too broad and complex for that. This is true not only of the theory of evolution but also of the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and many other theories in science.

While it is not possible to PROVE a theory (and hence no such proof is to be looked for), it is possible to DISPROVE the theory, and the theory stands accepted until it is disproven or until a better theory is developed. The problem with intelligent design is that it can't be disproven -- no falsifiable predictions can be made on the basis of it -- and therefore it is non-science.

You must've missed this earlier.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

And Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

[Dragon]

You must've missed this earlier.

I miss the relevance of the quote now. Probably because it has none.

 

[Dragon]

And Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

The conflict between evolution and intelligent design is not a conflict between science and religion. It's a conflict between science an pseudoscience. Evolution says nothing about religion at all. Nor does religion say anything about evolution -- except when it tries to intrude on the proper territory of science.