Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Think about the impact of a flood back then and now. Mobility was much easier, and moving [inland] was not nearly the quagmire it would be (and will be) today.

OK, but that doesn't explain away older mythologies without a flood myth. Besides, the flood myths that do exist discuss it as if it the onset of the flood was sudden without warning, except Sumerian and biblical accounts, to my knowledge. Some of the flood myths that do exist don't even agree on the extent of the floods in question, with some being local to the area and other claiming world wide coverage. The world wide coverage floods of the Sumerians and biblical account were under the belief that the world was much smaller than it is now known to be.

[But, then I think of lost cities like Alexandria, and obviously some were unable to escape the inevitable - History channel just ran a sweet show on that]

Er, Alexandria has never been a lost city. What was the title of that show, maybe I can find it online.

I went back again and I can find no explanation given for why cause and effect implies infinity to you. This was my question and it has still gone unanswered.

My point was that to me, cause and effect itself implies infinity, thats it, thats the why!!!

As I said, I can find no information, peer reviewed scientific research conducted that can corroborate this supposed age. If you can provide sources other than a conspiracy slanted book I would be more than delighted to read it.

What teh hell is conspiracy slanted? Jeez with a mindset like that youll learn nothing, what is so hard to take on board, the Gizeh Plateau hasitn experienced rain for at least 10,000 years, there is vertical erosion on the sphinx only explainable by rain, rememebr we spoke about one plus one is two? Oh and I suppose its also a coincidence that at that exact time the sphinx faced the leo constellation when the sun rose in the east.

And dont give me your peer reviewd crap, the peer review process has been shown over and over again to be nothing more than a filtering tool, its a frikin joke, its the ultimate tool for keeping the status quo and if you really knew anything about the history of science youd know that!!

Originally posted by sirnex reply to post by SquirrelNutz

 

Think about the impact of a flood back then and now. Mobility was much easier, and moving [inland] was not nearly the quagmire it would be (and will be) today.

OK, but that doesn't explain away older mythologies without a flood myth. Besides, the flood myths that do exist discuss it as if it the onset of the flood was sudden without warning, except Sumerian and biblical accounts, to my knowledge. Some of the flood myths that do exist don't even agree on the extent of the floods in question, with some being local to the area and other claiming world wide coverage. The world wide coverage floods of the Sumerians and biblical account were under the belief that the world was much smaller than it is now known to be.

Different account from different people in different places with different points of view would explain this, the amount of consistent flood myths even with this taken into account is impressive.

[But, then I think of lost cities like Alexandria, and obviously some were unable to escape the inevitable - History channel just ran a sweet show on that]

Er, Alexandria has never been a lost city. What

was the title of that show, maybe I can find it online.

I think you know what he means, jeez!

[edit on 10-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

reply to post by Outlawstar

Different account from different people in different places with different points of view would explain this, the amount of consistent flood myths even with this taken into account is impressive.

It really isn't impressive considering that they aren't consistent nor written around the same story or time period.

I think you know what he means, jeez!

Um no, which is why I asked.

My point was that to me, cause and effect itself implies infinity, thats it, thats the why!!!

I asked specifically how cause and effect imply infinity to you.

What teh hell is conspiracy slanted? Jeez with a mindset like that youll learn nothing, what is so hard to take on board, the Gizeh Plateau hasitn experienced rain for at least 10,000 years, there is vertical erosion on the sphinx only explainable by rain, rememebr we spoke about one plus one is two? Oh and I suppose its also a coincidence that at that exact time the sphinx faced the leo constellation when the sun rose in the east.

As I have never heard of any evidence for this, can I ask for peer reviewed research conducted? Any established and verified scientific research at the very least.

And dont give me your peer reviewd crap, the peer review process has been shown over and over again to be nothing more than a filtering tool, its a frikin joke, its the ultimate tool for keeping the status quo and if you really knew anything about the history of science youd know that!!

Sure, and all our technology and knowledge that rests upon the peer review process doesn't really exist, it's all part of our collective imagination.

reply to post by sirnex

Well despite everything. I have something in science that has never been proven, and is generally accepted. The first and second law of thermodynamics. It's an assumed "fact" based on "experience". In other words, a postulate. Now tell me, why can't they do that with ID?


reply to post by hlesterjerome


Philosophy does not equal religion. I guess that makes your reply irrelevant.. And I really wonder who gave you that star.. He/she is probably equally misinformed about philosophy..

[edit on 10-11-2009 by vasaga]

It really isn't impressive considering that they aren't consistent nor written around the same story or time period.

History'll tend to do that yep!

I asked specifically how cause and effect imply infinity to you.

Simply because of the definition of cause and effect!!!

What teh hell is conspiracy slanted? Jeez with a mindset like that youll learn nothing, what is so hard to take on board, the Gizeh Plateau hasitn experienced rain for at least 10,000 years, there is vertical erosion on the sphinx only explainable by rain, rememebr we spoke about one plus one is two? Oh and I suppose its also a coincidence that at that exact time the sphinx faced the leo constellation when the sun rose in the east.

As I have never heard of any evidence for this, can I ask for peer reviewed research conducted? Any established and verified scientific research at the very least.

John Anthony West is a writer, scholar and Pythagorean, born in New York City. He is the author of The Traveler's Key to Ancient Egypt, and consulting editor for the Traveler's Key series. His previous book, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt is an exhaustive study of the revolutionary Egyptological work of the French mathematician and Orientalist, the late R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz. In The Case for Astrology, John Anthony West presents compelling new evidence that proves the astrological premise: that correlations exist between events in the sky and on earth, and that correspondences exist between the human personality and the positions of the planets at birth. Mr. West has published a novel and many short stories; his plays have been produced on stage, television and radio, and he writes articles, essays and criticism for The New York Times Book Review, Conde Nast's Traveler and other general interest and specialized newspapers and magazines in America and abroad. He won an EMMY Award for his 1993 NBC Special Documentary The Mystery of the Sphinx, hosted by Charlton Heston. The ancient Egyptians themselves attributed their wisdom to an earlier age going back 36,000 years. West set out to test the hypothesis that the Sphinx was much older than its conventional date of 2500 BC. His findings provide the first hard evidence that an earlier age of civilization preceded the known development of civilization in the Nile valley. John Anthony West is today the leading authority and proponent of the 'Symbolist' school of Egyptology, an alternative interpretation of ancient Egyptian culture advanced by the French scholar and philosopher, R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz (1891-1962). In the Symbolist view, Egyptian architecture and art disclose a richer and more universal wisdom than conventional Egyptology has assumed. Mr. West lectures extensively on Egypt and personally leads several in-depth study tours to Egypt every year.

IF I find the peer reviewed work, Ill show ya, also geologist robert schoch, corroberates teh theory, along with many other archeologists and geologists, mostly scandinavian.

And dont give me your peer reviewd crap, the peer review process has been shown over and over again to be nothing more than a filtering tool, its a frikin joke, its the ultimate tool for keeping the status quo and if you really knew anything about the history of science youd know that!!

Sure, and all our technology and knowledge that rests upon the peer review process doesn't really exist, it's all part of our collective imagination.

Your generalizations are getting tiresome and silly, my point still stands!!!

reply to post by vasaga

Well despite everything. I have something in science that has never been proven, and is generally accepted. The first and second law of thermodynamics. It's an assumed "fact" based on "experience". In other words, a postulate. Now tell me, why can't they do that with ID?

They both describe a closed system and would be a fact in a closed system based upon the physics of our universe. From my understanding, this is not based upon experience of any such closed systems, because as far as I know, no such closed systems have ever been seen.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by vasaga

 

Well despite everything. I have something in science that has never been proven, and is generally accepted. The first and second law of thermodynamics. It's an assumed "fact" based on "experience". In other words, a postulate. Now tell me, why can't they do that with ID?

They both describe a closed system and would be a fact in a closed system based upon the physics of our universe. From my understanding, this is not based upon experience of any such closed systems, because as far as I know, no such closed systems have ever been seen.

But, it's still a postulate, just like a closed system is an assumption. And yet, you still haven't answered the real question. Why can't they do something similar for ID, if they can do it for thermodynamics?

originally posted by Key2life
________________________________________

I think this whole argument is fruitless... For one ID isn't considered science by many but that doesn't mean it may ruled out or be discovered in future endeavors.

I would agree that ID can not, at this time, be ruled out by any scientific evidence available today.

But, the other side of the coin…

Proponents of ID can not expect the scientific community to accept ID as a scientific proposition, just because a group of people have a strong desire to believe ID is a valid scientific proposition.

The modern idea of ID given to us by the discovery institute is roughly 10 years old.

After a period of 10 years NOT A SINGLE hypothesis regarding ID has been offered to the scientific community.

If proponents of ID want to be taken seriously by the scientific community, they need to stop trying to use subterfuge as a means of getting ID accepted by the scientific community and start working on an actual scientific hypothesis.

A credible scientific hypothesis is all it would take to get more genuine scientists on board the ID band wagon.

ID proponents would be better served if they were to stop expending their energy arguing that ID must be considered scientific based on the premise “that’s what we believe.”

You would make a lot more progress if you would redirect your energy and resources on developing an actual credible hypothesis concerning ID.

reply to post by Outlawstar

History'll tend to do that yep!

So to explain away the discrepancies of the mythologies we'll just default to that explanation without evidence for it?

Simply because of the definition of cause and effect!!!

The definition itself does not imply infinity. The definition implies that an effect is always preceded by a cause and alludes to no possibility of their being infinite effects and causes. Would you like for me to post the definition so that you can pick it apart and prove me and the definition wrong?

IF I find the peer reviewed work, Ill show ya, also geologist robert schoch, corroberates teh theory, along with many other archeologists and geologists, mostly scandinavian.

Can you at least list names so that I may look them up? I do have one issue:

The ancient Egyptians themselves attributed their wisdom to an earlier age going back 36000 years.

The only information I've been able to locate on this is the same exact word for word quoted text you posted above. Do you know of any other research conducted that states this as I'm having trouble verifying this claim.

Your generalizations are getting tiresome and silly, my point still stands!!!

Er, I don't believe your point has much to stand on.

reply to post by vasaga

But, it's still a postulate, just like a closed system is an assumption. And yet, you still haven't answered the real question. Why can't they do something similar for ID, if they can do it for thermodynamics?

The physics surrounding thermodynamics is verifiable and sound and can be tested for. Whereas, there is so far no chance shown for the same with ID. You can't just jump up and down shouting there is a designer without showing *something* to substantiate that claim. We can speculate all we want on the origins of the universe, but speculation is not science nor does speculation become science without evidence.

History'll tend to do that yep!

Im not explaining them away, Im EXPLAINING them, christ!

Just look at the bible if you want evidence that history changes texts drastically.

Simply because of the definition of cause and effect!!!

The definition itself does not imply infinity. The definition implies that an effect is always preceded by a cause and alludes to no possibility of their being infinite effects and causes. Would you like for me to post the definition so that you can pick it apart and prove me and the definition wrong?

The definition DOES imply infinity, if their is a cause for EVERYTHING, then it stands to reason that there was no first cause, which implies infinity, understand?



Can you at least list names so that I may look them up? I do have one issue:

The only information I've been able to locate on this is the same exact word for word quoted text you posted above. Do you know of any other research conducted that states this as I'm having trouble verifying this claim.

Pretty sure the pyramid texts themselves are the source for this, however I wont be trawling through those again for a while.

Anyway the evidence speaks for itself, so far NO-ONE has disproven Wes and Schocs conclusion convincingly and Im pretty sure you wont either!

Er, I don't believe your point has much to stand on.

You wouldint,!









[edit on 10-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by vasaga

 

But, it's still a postulate, just like a closed system is an assumption. And yet, you still haven't answered the real question. Why can't they do something similar for ID, if they can do it for thermodynamics?

The physics surrounding thermodynamics is verifiable and sound and can be tested for. Whereas, there is so far no chance shown for the same with ID. You can't just jump up and down shouting there is a designer without showing *something* to substantiate that claim. We can speculate all we want on the origins of the universe, but speculation is not science nor does speculation become science without evidence.

Alright. True.. This part for example:

"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

But, if we go by this, one must also acknowledge that science is not the method to cover ALL subjects that matter in real life. It well never be if it stays the same.. A simple one is, the "I". Everyone sees himself as an "I" who is observing, but science can't find it anywhere in your body.. There is no observer but we have that experience. Same as consciousness, same as thoughts, same as ethics and same as our origin of life. I can bet anyone that abiogenesis will never succeed, unless they manipulate a creator inside of it.. In any case, I'll leave the discussion as it is. This is my last reply. I guess I made my point, which is, science thinks it can answer everything by its current method while it obviously can't.

Have a nice day everyone.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by vasaga]

reply to post by Outlawstar

Im not explaining them away, Im EXPLAINING them, christ!

No, you haven't shown any actual explaining, you never backed it up. You can't just claim any arbitrary statement and cell it a valid explanation. You should know how this is going to play out by now.

Just look at the bible if you want evidence that history changes texts drastically.

Yes, the bible has plagiarized and destroyed various mythologies, but this still doesn't explain the various dates given for different myth floods or the discrepancies involved with their accounts nor the fact that a flood myth only exists near a body of water. I don't accept assumption based speculation as evidence nor explanation.

The definition DOES imply infinity, if their is a cause for EVERYTHING, then it stands to reason that there was no first cause, which implies infinity, understand?

Do you understand what a contradiction is?

Pretty sure the pyramid texts themselves are the source for this, however I wont be trawling through those again for a while.

Is this statement made based on what you've read by those authors or by research conducted by yourself to verify the claims made?

Anyway the evidence speaks for itself, so far NO-ONE has disproven Wes and Schocs conclusion convincingly and Im pretty sure you wont either!

As I haven't read their books nor own them nor was I able to find much information about the claims I wouldn't go so far as to make the empty claim that they haven't been disproven.

You wouldint,!

Boo Hoo?

reply to post by vasaga

But, if we go by this, one must also acknowledge that science is not the method to cover ALL subjects that matter in real life. It well never be if it stays the same.. A simple one is, the "I". Everyone sees himself as an "I" who is observing, but science can't find it anywhere in your body.. There is no observer but we have that experience. Same as consciousness, same as thoughts, same as ethics and same as our origin of life. I can bet anyone that abiogenesis will never succeed, unless they manipulate a creator inside of it.. In any case, I'll leave the discussion as it is. This is my last reply. I guess I made my point, which is, science thinks it can answer everything by its current method while it obviously can't.

I disagree that science can't explain the "I" observer. From my readings of various studies in neuroscience it seems to me that we're gaining a better understanding of how the brain works. By no means not fully complete, but knowledgeable enough in my opinion to conclude that the "I" observe is a direct result of the brain. The physics surrounding abiogenesis is sound, so sound that it is based on everything known about physics and chemistry, which is tested and verifiable. What is missing is the important variable of early earth that lead to abiogenesis.

Originally posted by vasaga

..."The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

But, if we go by this, one must also acknowledge that science is not the method to cover ALL subjects that matter in real life. It well never be if it stays the same.. A simple one is, the "I". Everyone sees himself as an "I" who is observing, but science can't find it anywhere in your body.. There is no observer but we have that experience. Same as consciousness, same as thoughts, same as ethics and same as our origin of life. I can bet anyone that abiogenesis will never succeed, unless they manipulate a creator inside of it.. In any case, I'll leave the discussion as it is. This is my last reply. I guess I made my point, which is, science thinks it can answer everything by its current method while it obviously can't.

Have a nice day everyone.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by vasaga]

If your point is...

You have an opinion and that opinion is different than some other people...

Then, yeah, you made you point.

But that doesn't change the fact that the answer to the question the OP of this thread asked is...

People say that Intelligent Design is not scientific because it does not meet the criteria to be considered scientific.

Just look at the bible if you want evidence that history changes texts drastically.

Yes, the bible has plagiarized and destroyed various mythologies, but this still doesn't explain the various dates given for different myth floods or the discrepancies involved with their accounts nor the fact that a flood myth only exists near a body of water. I don't accept assumption based speculation as evidence nor explanation.

It puts forward the theory that the discrepencies are due to human nature, every human isint going to write about an event teh same way, or see an event the same way, and thus not document an event the same way!

Do you understand what a contradiction is?

Interesting get-out clause, care to enlighten me as to why Im wrong!

Is this statement made based on what you've read by those authors or by research conducted by yourself to verify the claims made?

Myself, thoiugh its been a while since Ive read the texts myself, so Ill get back to ya on it.

As I haven't read their books nor own them nor was I able to find much information about the claims I wouldn't go so far as to make the empty claim that they haven't been disproven.

Its not an empty claim, no-one has disproven the theory definitively, yet egyptology still resists in the face of the evidence, seeing a pattern here?

Boo Hoo?

Indeed!

reply to post by Outlawstar

It puts forward the theory that the discrepencies are due to human nature, every human isint going to write about an event teh same way, or see an event the same way, and thus not document an event the same way!

So you go back to explaining away the discrepancies rather than giving a valid explanation for them?

Interesting get-out clause, care to enlighten me as to why Im wrong!

Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a direct consequence of the first.

No where is it explicitly mentioned to include all causes and all events. Causality explicitly defines the events surrounding individual events as they occur.

The contradiction in your statement is thus:

their is a cause for EVERYTHING
...
there was no first cause

Apparently you either have no grasp on the concept your currently discussing or... Wait, there is no or! If you can't see the contradiction with the given above statement, then all hope is lost with you.

Myself, thoiugh its been a while since Ive read the texts myself, so Ill get back to ya on it.

Just out of curiosity (again) Have you bothered verifying any of this information through proper scientific means?

Its not an empty claim, no-one has disproven the theory definitively, yet egyptology still resists in the face of the evidence, seeing a pattern here?

It's an empty claim until I can find documented research to back up the given claims, as such I have been unable to find and you have been unable to provide suggesting to me that you don't bother verifying anything that 'just sounds so damn cool'.

So you go back to explaining away the discrepancies rather than giving a valid explanation for them?

I think its valid, you dont, remember we spoke about different interpretations?

Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a direct consequence of the first. No where is it explicitly mentioned to include all causes and all events. Causality explicitly defines the events surrounding individual events as they occur. The contradiction in your statement is thus:

their is a cause for EVERYTHING ... there was no first cause

Apparently you either have no grasp on the concept your currently discussing or... Wait, there is no or! If you can't see the contradiction with the given above statement, then all hope is lost with you.

If I said their is a cause for everything, and then I said there was no first cause, that is not a contradiction, If infinity is true then THERE IS NO FIRST CAUSE, BUT EVERYTHING STILL HAS A CAUSE, whats so hard to comprehend?

Just out of curiosity (again) Have you bothered verifying any of this information through proper scientific means?

Yep, the tranSlatiOn is pretty easy, I just read it from multiple sources, Im guessing you never had.
You really love evidence but rarely back up your claims with ANY?

It's an empty claim until I can find documented research to back up the given claims, as such I have been unable to find and you have been unable to provide suggesting to me that you don't bother verifying anything that 'just sounds so damn cool'.

The book is documented research, by to extremely credible men, with exhaustive credentials!

reply to post by Outlawstar

I think its valid, you dont, remember we spoke about different interpretations?

Something is valid only when you can produce evidence for validity. You can't just say i think it's valid and poof it's valid. You have to substantiate your claim made by showing a series of events that prove that there is some actual validity to it.

If I said their is a cause for everything, and then I said there was no first cause, that is not a contradiction, If infinity is true then THERE IS NO FIRST CAUSE, BUT EVERYTHING STILL HAS A CAUSE, whats so hard to comprehend?

Think logically and really hard about it. Put some honest effort into it. Pick it apart in your own reply before I answer the obviousness inherent there.

Yep, the tranSlatiOn is pretty easy, I just read it from multiple sources, Im guessing you never had.
You really love evidence but rarely back up your claims with ANY?

Most of my questions have been geared towards asking you to provide sources for the information you've been claiming is true. As I can't back up your own claims due to the seemingly non-existence of the material, how can I back up *your* claim? Do me a favor, knock on your head for me.

The book is documented research, by to extremely credible men, with exhaustive credentials!

Did you verify the work yourself or more aptly, how sure are you of the claims if you haven't verified the work? I'm unable to find any verified documented scientific research papers suggesting what your claiming here.