It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
In reference to an earlier point I made, civilisation DID essentially appear fully formed with a speed of progression not following with the previous advancements, and gained knowledge without recorded precedent.


Look at a 1905 automobile and compare it to a modern one. There is no mistaking the process of “development”. But in Egypt there are no parallels. Everything is right there at the start.
…Egyptian civilization was not a “development”, it was a legacy.2



Walter Emery, Edwards Professor of Egyptology at the University of London, says that about 5,400 years ago, Egypt changed rapidly from a New Stone Age culture to a complex one, including writing, architecture, arts, and crafts, with little to no previous development.1


…. Strangely, despite the best efforts of archaeologists, not a single, solitary sign of anything that could be described as the “developmental phase” of Olmec society had been unearthed anywhere in Mexico (or, for that matter, anywhere in the New World). These people, …appeared to have come from nowhere.6


It is important to observe the sequence of events. First, for perhaps a quarter of a million years, intelligent men, to all intents and purposes apparently much like ourselves, advanced their culture scarcely at all.… The sequence is, then, an unbelievably long time with almost no growth; a sudden spurt leading within a very few centuries to remarkably high culture…4






[edit on 4-11-2009 by Outlawstar]




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
...If an event is too statistically impossible to happen by chance(yes, given an "infinite" amount of time, an event, no matter how unlikely, will happen, however, the universe is said to be "only" 14 billion years old), yet happens anyway, then doesn't that imply that someone must have designed it?...


Your belife that reality as we know it is statistically impossible is not proof reality as we know it is statistically impossible.

Apply Scientific Method to your conjecture...

give us a hypothesis...

A hypothesis that is credible enough to make predictions that pave the way for experiments that will lead one to believe that it is statistically impossible for reality, as we know it, to exist without an intelligent designer.

That is the whole issue in a nutshell. The original question was why people say thet intelligent design is not considered scientific.

The answer to that is:

...No cerditable hypothesis.
...No cerditable hypothesis that leads to reasonable predictions.
...No cerditable hypothesis that leads to reasonable experiments that can validate the hypothesis and/or predictions.

It's not scientific because it does not follow the criteria needed to be considered scientific.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome

Originally posted by np6888
...If an event is too statistically impossible to happen by chance(yes, given an "infinite" amount of time, an event, no matter how unlikely, will happen, however, the universe is said to be "only" 14 billion years old), yet happens anyway, then doesn't that imply that someone must have designed it?...


Your belife that reality as we know it is statistically impossible is not proof reality as we know it is statistically impossible.

Apply Scientific Method to your conjecture...

give us a hypothesis...

A hypothesis that is credible enough to make predictions that pave the way for experiments that will lead one to believe that it is statistically impossible for reality, as we know it, to exist without an intelligent designer.

That is the whole issue in a nutshell. The original question was why people say thet intelligent design is not considered scientific.

The answer to that is:

...No cerditable hypothesis.
...No cerditable hypothesis that leads to reasonable predictions.
...No cerditable hypothesis that leads to reasonable experiments that can validate the hypothesis and/or predictions.

It's not scientific because it does not follow the criteria needed to be considered scientific.



And of course it should be therefore discarded without a second thought, bleh.
Lets not forget the current "scientific" facts that were viewed the very same way not long ago.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

...And of course it should be therefore discarded without a second thought,....


No.

But if you want the scientific community to sit up and listen you will need to present your argument within the framework of the Scientific method.

If you want the scientific community to sit up and listen you HAVE to present a credible hypothesis on Intelligent Design.

If you want the scientific community to sit up and listen you HAVE to be able to show how you can derive credible predictions from your hypothesis .

If you want the scientific community to sit up and listen you HAVE to design neutral experiments that lead naturally to the conclusions your hypothesis/predictions outline.

If you want the scientific community to sit up and listen you HAVE to run your experiments and present your data and methodology to peer review.

The ONLY way ID will be taken seriously by the scientific communtiy is to run it through the wringer of scientific method.

Do that and come back with solid data and you will win over a boatload of converts.

Continue to attempt to pass off a boat-load-o-presumptions without the backing of scientific method and you will win over few.

Why, you ask, do people not think Intelligent Design is scientific?

Because...

At this point in time...

IT"S NOT!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 


It shouldn't be discarded without a second thought. There's certainly no way to disprove God, so if you prefer a faith-based religion then by all means, believe in Intelligent Design. BUT!! It certainly shouldn't be called science, because it is not science. Teach it in theology class or philosophy or something, not biology or history.

A bicycle is a means of transportation, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to call it a car. The same thing applies to Intelligent Design in regards to science.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 


Some would regard scientific knowledge as "gospel"; if it can't be measured it doesn't exist. Others dismiss the "evil" sciences outright, denying truth because it doesn't fit their concepts of reality.

Science is essentially a measuring tool, what we do with it is up to us.

As the lines of scientific knowledge and spiritual knowledge begin to converge, some will need to re-define their concepts of what is and what isn't. Growth requires change, change can be disconcerting yet it is essential.

I personally believe that 'confidence in science' and 'spiritual faith' are not mutually exclusive.

Science and Faith can sometimes appear to be at odds. Reflection and insight can reconcile the two without the need for absolute dismisal of either.

~Peace



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 



1 Peter 1:8,"Though you have not seen Him,you love Him;and even though you do not see Him now,you believe in Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,for you are receiving the goal of your faith,the salvation of your souls."


I don't love God for God is a vengeful lying genocidal tyrant and I can't love anyone who acts in such a way for whatever reason they wish to use to justify that act.


Romans 6:23,"For the wages of sin is death,but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus,our Lord."


This is actually a lie.



Does that answer your question?


No, all you've given me a scriptural verses written by men. I believe the question is, what evidence do you have for your God.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
i agree. just because most ID supporters seem to be Creationists in cognito, doesn't mean ALL of them are. i'm a christian btw but i never bought the idea the God just "poofed" the Universe into existence, God is so far above that. I believe that God created evolution.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 



Anyway, no proof of intelligent design? Once again, no one has answered my question, what is considered proof?


An actual designer or at the very least something shown that could not have possibly evolved or have been created through natural means.


If an event is too statistically impossible to happen by chance(yes, given an "infinite" amount of time, an event, no matter how unlikely, will happen, however, the universe is said to be "only" 14 billion years old), yet happens anyway, then doesn't that imply that someone must have designed it?


There is no such thing as chance nor does matter behaving as it should per the laws of physics imply a designer.


Let me construct a universe in which I think most would agree, based on our "known or previously accepted common sense," that is if we hadn't known how things work, and compare it to what we've learned. And feel free if you disagree.


I probably will disagree.


I think most would agree that the most natural state of the universe would be that space has always existed and goes on infinitely.


Pure speculation. Current belief, both scientifically and religiously both postulate a finite universe of finite age, both with their own set of 'evidences'.


There would be no such things as space expanding, faster than light no less(sly Creator he is, because this makes it impossible for us to ever see what's outside of space).


You sound as if you have intimate knowledge of the creators intentions with that statement; In which case it should not be hard for you to produce some form of evidence for it's existence.


I think most would agree that matter should be made out of something solid and tangible, instead of energy and space.


Why "should" it be?


I think most would agree that the Earth should be flat, instead of it being round, with the reason we don't fall off at night is because some force(which we now know is not a force, but rather a curvature of space) that is holding us up.


I'm really wishing your being sarcastic here.


I think most would agree that there should be no such things as curved space OR time.


I agree to a point, I don't subscribe to the thought that time is a fundamental aspect of the universe.


I think most would agree that all of the elements of the universe should be distributed uniformly at any point.


I disagree as this would imply explicit knowledge of the universe.


However, according to the Big Bang Theory, the universe was in a state of low entropy, which can be described as walking into a room, and seeing all the hot air on one side and cold ones on the other, right after the Big Bang. In other words, almost impossible statistically.


Your description of the big bang is erroneous, but I do agree that the big bang is inherently wrong given recent observations made and the requirement to invent invisible thing's to describe those new observations. I would like to point out however that regardless of the theories validity being in question; this in no way heightens or elevates the validity of a creator.


And of course, we have the beginning of life, where we can't explain WHY exactly these atoms keep having these chemical reactions that lead to amino acids, then protein, then cells, then organs, etc., before it ever developed the brain to interpret that these processes are advantageous.


Lack of knowledge is not proof of, hopefully you are intelligent enough to see the beauty in that statement.


You can see from all this that the reason we don't consider any of these events as miraculous is simply because we understand how they work. Yet the truth is, Jesus walking on water is no more a miracle than the fact that this universe started out as an atom.


Jesus never walked on water as far as I can tell. I can find more evidence for how much grain is available before next years harvest from four thousand years ago, but I can find no mention of a man walking on water being described by a boat full of eyewitnesses.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
i agree. just because most ID supporters seem to be Creationists in cognito, doesn't mean ALL of them are. i'm a christian btw but i never bought the idea the God just "poofed" the Universe into existence, God is so far above that. I believe that God created evolution.


Wow, less than 50% of ID scientists believe in the creation account of Genesis. And secondly, I don't want to worship a God that needs billions of years to get things just right, give me the God who can do it simply by saying "let there be..."



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



The rest of your points show a lack of knowledge, the Egyptians for instance did not build the pyramids, at least thats what the data suggest, and civilisations have for all intents and purposes popped up fully formed and then appear to digress, this is common knowledge.


Common knowledge? Were you home schooled by any chance?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



The rest of your points show a lack of knowledge, the Egyptians for instance did not build the pyramids, at least thats what the data suggest, and civilisations have for all intents and purposes popped up fully formed and then appear to digress, this is common knowledge.


Common knowledge? Were you home schooled by any chance?

Wow, if that guy thinks it was a "miracle" or "aliens" that built the great pyramid with blocks no bigger than 50 tons then what does he think of the foundation stones of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem???

Those foundation stones are 1000 tons, and so tightly placed that one cannot fit a razor blade between them.

Right, the pyramids are a "marvel" of the ancient world. The Jews are LOLing at that thought IRL.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
And anyone who has studied Physics 101 knows the Big Bang is a joke. Conservation of Angular Momentum anyone???



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex


Let's get this out of the way first then. What is your understanding of evolution as without your understanding I would have trouble locating exactly what is needed to persuade you in your erroneous statements. Are you of the old Darwinian Evolutionary Theory or do you subscribe to the more modern thoughts of the process itself? Are you concerned with the bones as an end all or do you subscribe to the modern knowledge of the importance DNA plays in the evolutionary process?


My understanding of evolution comes after you explain yours since that was my request first


I have made no claims as to the validity or strength of any theory of evolution. The only assertion I have made is that the theories involved that depict the process of evolution arose from the observation of it occurring in nature.


Yes I think we can all agree, we have seen a sun tan before. Big deal



Do you so readily and violently also discredit gravity as a real phenomena simply because there are many different theories attempting to explain this observable phenomena?


No and violently is a pretty outrageous assumption




This should be fun. Really!


It used to be, back when I actually believed it was an argument either side wouldn't be so unwilling to relinquish their dogma over

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Matt_Mason]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Wow, if that guy thinks it was a "miracle" or "aliens" that built the great pyramid with blocks no bigger than 50 tons then what does he think of the foundation stones of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem???


I've always found it funny how people demand that because the ancients didn't have microwave ovens and televisions then they were incapable of moving rocks; Mostly because they think they were too stupid, yet I refute that idea by pointing to the numerous toddlers moving small blocks on their own without alien intervention.


And anyone who has studied Physics 101 knows the Big Bang is a joke. Conservation of Angular Momentum anyone???


Hell, thermodynamics as well.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Matt_Mason
 



My understanding of evolution comes after you explain yours since that was my request first


Look up the modern theory as it exists today and you'll have your answer.


Yes I think we can all agree, we have seen a sun tan before. Big deal


Your analogy has lost all meaning to me, what point are you attempting to make here?


No and violently is a pretty outrageous assumption


An observation made by the tone of your post.


It used to be, back when I actually believed it was an argument either side wouldn't be so unwilling to relinquish their dogma over


I still find this fun!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
. Evolution, whether micro- or macro-, is an observed fact of life. It doesn't matter how often people like you keep repeating that it doesn't happen because life isn't limited by such people's limited knowledge or imagination.



Yeah and just because you keep saying it has been proven doesn't mean it has unless we use that vivid imagination it takes to even consider statements like yours. macro evolution has been observed? Really? ha ha ha that's quite an imagination you have there allright



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Look up the modern theory as it exists today and you'll have your answer.


As I recall the top sixteen evolutionary biologists still can't seem to come to an agreement exactly what or how the theory is going to be explained yet and they are still having arguments over this so called fact of evolution.



Altenberg 16: Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (Non-Centrality of the Gene)



www.scoop.co.nz...


Quote:
No one knows how life began, but so-called theories of evolution are continually being announced. This book, The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? exposes the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution, as rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner in hopes that "survival of the fittest" ideology can be replaced with a more humane explanation for our existence and stave off further wars, economic crises and destruction of the Earth.

Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot". . .

In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.

Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species – the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago.

Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. It also knows that self-organization is real, that is, matter can form without a genetic recipe – like the snowflake (non-living). It does this without external guidance.

And that the Hydra (living), for example, can self-assemble its scattered cells even after being forced through a sieve. Yet, science elites continue to term self-assembly and self-organization "woo woo".

Coinciding with the 2009 Darwinian celebration, MIT will publish a book by 16 biologists and philosophers meeting in Altenberg, Austria at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in July to discuss a reformulation of the theory of evolution. That’s the mansion made famous by Konrad Lorenz’s imprinting experiments, where Lorenz got his geese to follow him because they sensed he was their mother.

The symposium’s title is "Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis?", although the event is expected to be the actual kickoff of an evolution remix.

Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", also called neo-Darwinism – which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago – also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then – in the 1930s and 1940s – that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born.

I broke the story about the Altenberg affair last March with the assistance of Alastair Thompson and the team at Scoop Media, the independent news agency based in New Zealand. (Chapter 2, "Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?")

But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.

Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?



Your analogy has lost all meaning to me, what point are you attempting to make here?


That doesn't surprise me since the "meaning of my tone" you understand as violent. I was merely giving an example of the kind of evolution we all can agree can be observed and how mundane it is.






•violence - an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in ...
•violence - ferocity: the property of being wild or turbulent; "the storm's violence"
•violence - a turbulent state resulting in injuries and destruction etc.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

•Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt. Variant uses of the term refer to the destruction of non-living objects (see property damage). ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent



•Involving extreme force or motion; Involving physical conflict; Likely to use physical force
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Violent






I still find this fun!


really? whats the funnest part so far?





[edit on 4-11-2009 by Matt_Mason]

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Matt_Mason]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by np6888
Your analogy is off. Yes, the possibility of me happening is small, but the event of me being born "is not unique."


The analogy is perfect, calculations of probablity for events that have already HAPPENED are silly.

The probability is one.



Originally posted by np6888
There's a difference between "me being born" and "all the hot air on one side and cold air on the other."


So, we have:
* MILLIONS of tests that support evolution
* ZERO that disprove evolution
* ZERO that support ID
Are you giving up now?



Originally posted by np6888
And yes, amino acids came from chemistry. The question is, did they happen randomly, or did a certain "nucleus intelligence" drive them to make those chemical reactions?


We DIRECTLY observe them happening WITHOUT a "nucleus intelleigence" (what on earth is that?)


K.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


You have 'millions' of proofs of MICRO-evolution, which no one denies. You evolutionists need to provide ONE "proof" of MACRO evolution, don't shift the burden of proof onto ID scientists to prove your theory wrong, you guys need to prove it right.

You point to numerous examples of micro evolution then expect us to automatically assume chemical, stellar, and macro evolution exists without verifiable scientific evidence.

then shift the burden of proof to US to prove that they don't exist. Classic... How exactly do we PROVE a negative???




top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join