Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

yeah i thought i remembered something like that in this thread. but it was glossed over. with the amount of people claiming to be abducted by aliens and the rampant belief in aliens here i wouldve expected that to be more common.

Unfortunately for them, I don't accept personal experience as proof of. I personally doubt aliens are here or have ever been here.

but it has occurred to me that beauty is TERRIBLE proof of ID. if an intelligent creator wanted beauty, wouldnt they presumably have the power to make things more beautiful than trees? or quasars?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? I do agree though; that is horrible so called evidence.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Outlawstar

 

That could well be possible, as little as modern science would like to hear it, some great scholars have put forward that very notion.

I disagree, modern science would love to have evidence for life elsewhere. Unfortunately, I don't know of any "great scholars" who have produced evidence for it.

Ok I can only say that as much as you may think modern science would "love" to have evidence for life elsewhere, and as much as Im sure many would, , there is a disturbing history on NASAs part in covering up evidence of just that, just look at the brookings report and tell me you still believe they have your best interests at heart, and if you really believe modern science at the highest levels is the noble search for truth, dogma free that it should be, think again.

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


"I would like to ask why many people try to say intelligent design is not scientific"
what science is being done to prove this theory? it seems to me it is mostly about (failing to) disproe evolution


"Evolution from one species to another has too many flaws and many many reputable scientists dont agree with it."

many many many MANY more do agree with evolution

The first thing you learn in logic is that the majority of people believing in or agreeing about something does not make it true.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by vasaga]

but it has occurred to me that beauty is TERRIBLE proof of ID. if an intelligent creator wanted beauty, wouldnt they presumably have the power to make things more beautiful than trees? or quasars?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? I do agree though; that is horrible so called evidence.

Beauty certainly is in the eye of the beholder, however just the concept that it exists is intriguing, if in no way proof positive!

reply to post by vasaga


yes and no. they made the same argument the other way. i was pointing out that when they used it they were ignoring the fact that their "many" is relatively negligible.

yes, it is generally a bad argument to say 80% of americans think this so its true.

but at the im having trouble believing that statement is on the same level as "99% of all scientists are in agreement on a scientific fact."

either way i would agree the argument should be avoided.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

Originally posted by Outlawstar

... bleh.
Lets not forget the current "scientific" facts that were viewed the very same way not long ago.

But keep in mind that those current "scientific" facts that at one time were considered apocryphal became scientific facts ONLY after rigorous application of scientific method.

That's my whole point.

I'm not saying Intelligent Design should be abanded because it has never been looked at from a true scientific standpoint.

What I'm saying is, apply scientific method to it and determine if, from a scientific point of view, it has any merit.

Arguing that “reality is too complex to have happened spontaneously, therefore there has to be an Intelligent Designer behind reality” is not a true science based statement.

1…Observation.
2…Research.
3…Hypothesis.
4…Prediction.
5…Experiment.
6…Data reduction/analysis.
7…Peer review.

Scientific method will get you far.

Pure conjecture will cause you to eventually go backwards.

Imagine what would have happened if Galileo had did what the church demanded and retracted his idea that the Earth was not, in fact, the center of the universe.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

reply to post by Kapyong


Um, for short it's called the "Miller experiment" or even sometimes it's refered to as the "Stanley Miller Experiment", and yes "organic" compounds were formed, but "organic" simply means CARBON-BASED. You realize this I hope?

Miller used a completely wrong compound for the first atmosphere. The consensus today is that the original atmosphere was much different than what Miller used in his experiment.

Miller CHOSE a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor which was consistent with what many scientists thought back then. But scientists no longer believe that dude. As a geophysicist with the Carnegie Institution said in the 1960's:

"What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on Earth? The answer is that there is NO evidence for it, but MUCH AGAINST IT." - Philip H. Albeson

Even "Science" Magazine said in 1995 that the experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because;

'the early atmosphere looked NOTHING like the Miller-Urey simulation.' "Science" #270 (1995)

Experts now think there was very little Hydrogen in the primitive atmosphere and it probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. Most textbooks still include the Miller experiment as if it were a true representation of the early atmosphere when most Geochemists since the 1960s agree that the early atmosphere was much different than Miller thought.

Want to know what you get if you do the Miller experiment today with the compounds that the experts agree were present in the early atmosphere???

Some textbooks today admit the error of the Miller experiment, and will "fudge" the results by stating that with the new atmosphere one still gets "organic molecules" to develop.

It's absolute BS, the "organic molecules" that develop are FORMALDEHYDE and CYANIDE, you can't even have a capped bottle of Formaldehyde in most chemistry labs, you open the top and it fries protein molecules just from the vapor alone. It kills embryos, the idea that using the correct atmosphere in the Miller experiment gets you the first step in the origin of life is laughable... want to know what using the correct atmosphere conditions in the Miller experiment gets us???


Embalming fluid. Good job Miller. And I bet your textbook still has the Miller experiment in it, bet you my next 5 paychecks.

Originally posted by hlesterjerome

Originally posted by Outlawstar

... bleh.
Lets not forget the current "scientific" facts that were viewed the very same way not long ago.

But keep in mind that those current "scientific" facts that at one time were considered apocryphal became scientific facts ONLY after rigorous application of scientific method.

That's my whole point.

I'm not saying Intelligent Design should be abanded because it has never been looked at from a true scientific standpoint.

What I'm saying is, apply scientific method to it and determine if, from a scientific point of view, it has any merit.

Arguing that “reality is too complex to have happened spontaneously, therefore there has to be an Intelligent Designer behind reality” is not a true science based statement.

1…Observation.
2…Research.
3…Hypothesis.
4…Prediction.
5…Experiment.
6…Data reduction/analysis.
7…Peer review.

Scientific method will get you far.

Pure conjecture will cause you to eventually go backwards.

Imagine what would have happened if Galileo had did what the church demanded and retracted his idea that the Earth was not, in fact, the center of the universe.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

Listen, ultimately youre right,but heres where we hit the snag, ID is generally not taken seriously enough by those who have the resources to actually truly apply the scientific method.

Thats not to say its never been concluded by the great minds of modern scientists, Einstein himself alluded to a great organizer as youll see from one of my last posts.

Again Im not coming at this from any sort of religious angle, I have absolutely NO respect for ANY religious establishment and I certainly value the scientific method, but not as a substitute for free thinking and acting, the scientific method is not all roses, as it breeds a sort of lock and key dogma, not in all cases but some science is itself beginning to take on the characteristics of a religion, even as far as faith based assumnptions on the part of modern science.

Anyways all Im saying is there should be NO avenue that hasint yet been dis-proven as such, left closed never to be opened again.

Originally posted by Outlawstar

Originally posted by hlesterjerome

Originally posted by Outlawstar

Listen, ultimately youre right,but heres where we hit the snag, ID is generally not taken seriously enough by those who have the resources to actually truly apply the scientific method.

Thats not to say its never been concluded by the great minds of modern scientists, Einstein himself alluded to a great organizer as youll see from one of my last posts.

Again Im not coming at this from any sort of religious angle, I have absolutely NO respect for ANY religious establishment and I certainly value the scientific method, but not as a substitute for free thinking and acting, the scientific method is not all roses, as it breeds a sort of lock and key dogma, not in all cases but some science is itself beginning to take on the characteristics of a religion, even as far as faith based assumnptions on the part of modern science.

Anyways all Im saying is there should be NO avenue that hasint yet been dis-proven as such, left closed never to be opened again.

Can't really argue with most of your points.

A couple further points though...

To keep this all in correct context, we must keep in mind the history of the concept of intelligent design. It is a term invented by the discovery institute to replace the term Creation Science.

Per the discovery institutes wedge doctrine, they hoped that they could sneak creation science into schools underneath the radar of the constitution by renaming it Intelligent Design.

Their intention was to indoctrinate a generation of school kids, making them comfortable with the concept of Christian based creation as science.

After 20 years, it was their plan to use that generation to attempt to have scientific method reworked to force all scientific studies to be viewed from a Christian Spirituality point of view.

This is not my opinion. A number of documents have surfaced showing this plan.

A Credible hypothesis would go a long way to getting funding for further study.

Problem is, there has never been even a single Credible hypothesis put forward regarding ID.

When we keep in mind that ID was designed as a ruse to hide an attempt to circumvent the constitutional separation of church and state, it should be obvious that there will not be a Credible hypothesis anytime in the foreseeable future.

Another problem is, a lot of Christians have jumped onto the “ID Rules” bandwagon with no clue that ID was invented, not to be Credible theory, but a ruse to sneak religion into public school.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

ID feels like a way to repackage religion as science. As many others have pointed out, there is a mountain of proof for real science, and all of the proof for ID is in the bible...A collection of books written by men quite a long time ago. I really cannot stay quite when people try to argue that ID has a basis in science, when all it does is bastardize real science, and corrupt is for its own nefarious ends. Believing that there is a god is a crutch for people who cannot believe that being human really is a random chain of events stretching eons.

I think that the people who want to deny science should have to give up all of it, not just the parts that the bible does not seem to agree with. So you think that evolution is a sham? Well feel free to opt out of modern medical treatments, as almost all of it derives from our understanding of evolution and genetics.

If it were not for my passion about this subject I would not have even posted, as I know that hard core religious people will no doubt point out that people dont come from monkeys, or if eveolution is true, why dont chimps give birth to near humans or someother such nonsence. Oh and one more thing that I really need to post to feel like I wont lose my mind.

the⋅o⋅ry: 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
(Dictionary.com)
Unlike what some would have you belive, in science and math a theory does not mean something that is not proven.

The real issue is that science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Meanwhile, ID is based in faith. Faith is belief without evidence/proof and as such it's not science.

Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Absolutely, that's why it's still a theory, and not a law; however, it is the best fitting model that we currently have based on observable evidence such as the fossilized remains that we've found.

Also, absence of evidence for one theory, such as the infamous "missing link" in human evolution, does not prove that another notion is correct. Absence of evidence is exactly what it says, an absence of evidence. One cannot observe, or experiment upon what's not there. Unfortunately I've spoken with far too many people who think that the "missing link" somehow proves ID, and such a conclusion is a clear false dilemma logical fallacy.

reply to post by Maslo

Why do you think the Hawk moth caterpillar couldnt evolve a structure resembling snake head on the tail?

Because evolution is about gradual changes. It's not about all of a sudden there was one caterpillar hatched that looked exactly like a snake. Evolution doesn't work that way. And since looking a little bit like a snake but not really like a snake has no evolutionary advantage, logic dictates that the mutated caterpillar would be as equally likely to survive as the non-mutated ones.

And the female orgasm is easily explained by motivating females to have sex and procreate - evolutionary advantage.

If that were the case then females would orgasm quicker and easier, as evolution would have favoured these women over those that do not orgasm. We know that is not the case. The argument is that when a woman orgasms it increases her chance of fertilisation, if her and the man orgasm at the same time. In evolutionary terms this would drive towards a woman orgasming each and every time. It would also mean that woman who did not orgasm would be at an evolutionary disadvantage, and therefore be phased out of the population. This hasn't happened. Plus other animals don't have orgasms like human females do and they are motivated to have sex and procreate.

Evolution of flight happened by prolonging jumps.

Well, that's one of the theories. This theory again relies on there suddenly being a jump to wing like structures that offer an advantage by increasing jump lengtt. But again, there is no functional intermediate stage. If a creature has developed proto wings that are small and are not yet evolved enough to increase jump length then there is no natural selection of their offspring so they are just as likely to survive as those without the proto wings. Indeed it could be argued that the unfunctional proto wings could be a disadvantage in some ways.

Just because you believe in evolution doesnt mean you dont believe in god. Instead of making millions of individual organisms, it would be much easier for an all knowing being to create a single cell organism that will grow and reproduce and eventually become all the specialized organisms we have today. It's not like he in a rush because of time. We had all of eternity to get to the point we are now.

Originally posted by Obinhi
Unlike what some would have you belive, in science and math a theory does not mean something that is not proven.

Actually, in science that's exactly what it means. Once proven it becomes a law (ex. Newton's Law of Gravity). Very few scientific theories make it that far though.

[edit on 11/5/09 by redmage]

because it scares them the very idea of something so vast. Resonance,try the Keith Ward book 'doubting Dawkins'. good and interesting read.

reply to post by Outlawstar

Ok I can only say that as much as you may think modern science would "love" to have evidence for life elsewhere, and as much as Im sure many would, , there is a disturbing history on NASAs part in covering up evidence of just that, just look at the brookings report and tell me you still believe they have your best interests at heart, and if you really believe modern science at the highest levels is the noble search for truth, dogma free that it should be, think again.

*Yawn* one report from one space agency that briefly implies a possibility of cover-up depending upon the nature of contact doesn't inherently speak for all space agencies or private endeavors. Nor has NASA actually discovered any intelligence outside of our own atmosphere except for those who we send out in space.

Beauty certainly is in the eye of the beholder, however just the concept that it exists is intriguing, if in no way proof positive!

Beauty isn't actually beauty if you think logically about it. That *to me at least* is the whole point behind that phrase.

Again Im not coming at this from any sort of religious angle, I have absolutely NO respect for ANY religious establishment and I certainly value the scientific method, but not as a substitute for free thinking and acting, the scientific method is not all roses, as it breeds a sort of lock and key dogma, not in all cases but some science is itself beginning to take on the characteristics of a religion, even as far as faith based assumnptions on the part of modern science.

Your view of the scientific method is flawed in my opinion.

Gday,

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Kapyong

 

Um, for short it's called the "Miller experiment" or even sometimes it's refered to as the "Stanley Miller Experiment", and yes "organic" compounds were formed, but "organic" simply means CARBON-BASED. You realize this I hope?

The experiment was a complete success and proved what it set out to.

But naturally, cretinists lie about it.


K.

Originally posted by Outlawstar
Thats not to say its never been concluded by the great minds of modern scientists, Einstein himself alluded to a great organizer as youll see from one of my last posts.

Speaking of Einstein quotes...

it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious it is the unbound admiration for the structure of our world so far as science can reveal it

Einsteinian "religion" is puzzling to the people who love trying to quote him as being in favor of god, because they can't comprehend that someone can be in awe of hte universe without saying "God did it"

Again Im not coming at this from any sort of religious angle, I have absolutely NO respect for ANY religious establishment and I certainly value the scientific method, but not as a substitute for free thinking and acting, the scientific method is not all roses, as it breeds a sort of lock and key dogma, not in all cases but some science is itself beginning to take on the characteristics of a religion, even as far as faith based assumnptions on the part of modern science.

Then either you're completely ignorant about science and need to close your trap, or you're completely ignorant about religion and need to shut your trap. Just becuase you understand neither of them does not make them the same.

Anyways all Im saying is there should be NO avenue that hasint yet been dis-proven as such, left closed never to be opened again.

And as we keep pointing out, if ID proponents can come up with actual evidence of some sort of creator, then they might go somewhere.

Originally posted by Nammu
reply to post by Maslo

 

Because evolution is about gradual changes. It's not about all of a sudden there was one caterpillar hatched that looked exactly like a snake. Evolution doesn't work that way. And since looking a little bit like a snake but not really like a snake has no evolutionary advantage, logic dictates that the mutated caterpillar would be as equally likely to survive as the non-mutated ones.

...

If that were the case then females would orgasm quicker and easier, as evolution would have favoured these women over those that do not orgasm. We know that is not the case. The argument is that when a woman orgasms it increases her chance of fertilisation, if her and the man orgasm at the same time. In evolutionary terms this would drive towards a woman orgasming each and every time. It would also mean that woman who did not orgasm would be at an evolutionary disadvantage, and therefore be phased out of the population. This hasn't happened. Plus other animals don't have orgasms like human females do and they are motivated to have sex and procreate.

...

Well, that's one of the theories. This theory again relies on there suddenly being a jump to wing like structures that offer an advantage by increasing jump lengtt. But again, there is no functional intermediate stage. If a creature has developed proto wings that are small and are not yet evolved enough to increase jump length then there is no natural selection of their offspring so they are just as likely to survive as those without the proto wings. Indeed it could be argued that the unfunctional proto wings could be a disadvantage in some ways.

Ahhhh, argument from irrductable complexity. Tell me, Nammu. Do you consider yourself a strong thinker? I hope so, because I'm going to need you to flex your skull-muscle a bit and follow along.

Organs and structures can serve a purpose other than the one they currently provide.

Start with the wing. We're learning that a very many therapod dinosaurs had feathers. Feathers, as I'm sure you know, are basically heavily modified scales. They do a good job of retaining body heat, which is actually something small, active animals are in desperate need of. It would seem to me that some sort of feathery covering was likely universal among at least this particular group of dinosaurs.

Something else we know is that the dinosaur fauna was definitely far richer and more varied than what we find as fossils, because not everything fossilizes. It's no astounding leap of logic.

Now. Picture in your minds' eye, a pack of small therapod dinosaurs hopping through the trees rather like squirrels. Perhaps they're after pterosaurs, or maybe the mammals of the day were tree-dwellers as well. Like most small therapods, these guys are probably feathered. In my imagination, they have a stiffened tail and hooked claws to aid in climbing - they're the ancestors of both birds and dromaeosaurs.

Like any tree-hopping critter, they're going to want maximum airtime. The best way to do this is, of course to increase surface area. Stiffened feathers would help with this. Would short, stiff feathers dramatically increase leaping distance? No, but the distance would be improved. it may not be a gigantic breakthough in natural selection, but the fact is, every little bit helps. The semi-glider can get to mates a little faster or a little further, has a slight advantage over his compatriots when it comes to fleeing or chasing prey, and so the stubby feathers confer a minor survival advantage. They could very well serve secondary purposes such as matig displays or predator intimidation, which would further increase the trait's chances of being spread to the next generation.

Enough generations and you get four-limbed gliders (We've found them) then two-limbed gliders (we have them too) then powered two-limb flyers (yup!). if these critters end up moving to the ground, the feathers will either be lost, or turned to a new purpose as gliding / flying isn't too useful on the ground.

The female orgasm is an odd one, and has multiple origins. Did you know that chimpanzee females can have a say in which male fertilizes their eggs, even though female chimps tend to get boned by every male in a tribe? As you clearly know, the orgasm results in the cervix both extending and opening, essentially "sucking in" the semen of the last mate. if the female chimp isn't interested in the male on her at the moment, that effect won't happen, his sperm remains in the birth canal, and she gets it on with a better specimen. This has had an effect on male chimps as well - they have abnormally large testicles for their size, because he who makes the most sperm and can literally flood out the competition has a better chance of passing on his genes. It's still a haphazard process - the big-balled favorable males sire about 36% of the young in a given troupe - but all the other males, individually have lower chances, so clearly, big balls and female excitement have an effect on the fertility here.

And as for the caterpillar, it hasn't evolved to look like a snake. It's simply evolved to look like something other than a caterpillar. Humans think it looks like a snake - we have no idea if that's what another animal thinks it looks like. A caterpillar that successfully makes a predator have second thoughts about trying to eat it is a caterpillar that goes on to pupate and possibly breed.

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by Obinhi
Unlike what some would have you belive, in science and math a theory does not mean something that is not proven.

Actually, in science that's exactly what it means. Once proven it becomes a law (ex. Newton's Law of Gravity). Very few scientific theories make it that far though.

[edit on 11/5/09 by redmage]

Actually it's Newton's Theory of gravity. I've pointed this out before. Theory is as high in the order as the physical sciences can go, because we can't be certain they are universal constants - No matter where in the universe you are, you can always be certain that 1 + 1 = 2. That's a Law. However, you can't be certain that gravity will always the same wherever you are, becuase we haven't been able to observe the entire universe - there might very well be a region where gravitation works differently than we think it does.

However, we are certain that gravity works that way here, and everywhere else we've observed. Therefor it maintains its place as Theory, even though it will probably never become Law. Same goes for evolution and plate tectonics.

Now you know.

reply to post by resonance


OK let me get this straight.
The world, universe and life is not perfect.
The fossil record shows evidence of gradually changing species, yes there are gaps but fossilization is a rare event and I expect less than 10% of the Earth's surface has been searched for fossils.
Molecular genetics back up the theory of evolution.
Read Richard Dawkins' book Climbing Mount Improbable which for me, helped me understand evolution. It is NOT like The God Delusion as one is a science book, the other is a polemic.

Also, home.comcast.net... a short, interesting read

What evidence is there for intelligent design? A few books,mostly with differing accounts of creation?