Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

reply to post by sirnex


Okay... Now I know how much we all wish science can in principle explain everything.
But how might those statements I proposed be in principle be discovered? Pretend you have no technological limit. Show me how in principle they may be scrutinized.

Now might I use your same argument and say that ID might exist but we are too primitive to understand it. It would be like an ant trying to comprehend string theory or worse to comprehend us! Science hasn't advanced far enough to comprehend ID. Our current knowledge and technology is to primitive to understand ID. See this whole argument is pretty much the same as yours. Well in concept anyway.

reply to post by Key2life

Okay... Now I know how much we all wish science can in principle explain everything.
But how might those statements I proposed be in principle be discovered? Pretend you have no technological limit. Show me how in principle they may be scrutinized.

You know that question isn't answerable. Your doing nothing more than attempting to be a smartass. There is no possible way in which we can currently conceive of how such discoveries can be made as even the very first initial technological hurdles most likely haven't even been conceived as of yet themselves. I can't give an answer because *I am limited by current technology and knowledge*. You can't just pretend there is no limit and then *BAM* the wonders of the universe are open for all to know.

Now might I use your same argument and say that ID might exist but we are too primitive to understand it. It would be like an ant trying to comprehend string theory or worse to comprehend us! Science hasn't advanced far enough to comprehend ID. Our current knowledge and technology is to primitive to understand ID. See this whole argument is pretty much the same as yours. Well in concept anyway.

The two concepts are actually very distinct. It is in my opinion within our technological grasp and knowledge to understand ID and discover design as an argument against evolution. ID proposes that evolution is false because biological systems are irreducibly complex. Every system thus far pointed to as IC has been shown how that system can evolved without design and we can in some cases see precursors to certain systems still existing currently on our planet. The case for ID has already been admitted to be nothing more than a tactic to place God into public schools, it has already been admitted that it was never intended to be an actual scientific inquiry for the origins of life on this planet.

Your arguing from a very simplistic mindset.

reply to post by sirnex


I wasn't being a smart ass...
If you can't conceive in principle of how it can be done then don't say it is possible. It only becomes possible when it is done.

Philosophically these two concepts are quiet the same argument. They both assume the knowledge in question is unknown. If something is unknown then nothing can be known about it until it becomes known. You can't presume something doesn't exist unless knowledge proves it doesn't.
How do you know that what ever sent evolution in motion wasn't a program designed by ID. Philosophically it is possible since it can't be proven or unproven. It isn't science yet but that may be our own ignorance.
The ID I speak about is much different then what has been proposed. The ID I speak of is like a programmer who set the Universe in motion. It created the basic laws of physics and used the quantum principles to set it all in motion.

Stir your finger in a motionless pool of water with rocks in it.
You make ripples.
Things happen.
But move on to something else, and the ripples remain for awhile.
They move outward and form THEIR OWN SHAPES AND DIRECTIONS against the rocks even though you supplied the initial swirl.

Maybe someone is doing this with us.

Originally posted by brofjw
Stir your finger in a motionless pool of water with rocks in it.
You make ripples.
Things happen.
But move on to something else, and the ripples remain for awhile.
They move outward and form THEIR OWN SHAPES AND DIRECTIONS against the rocks even though you supplied the initial swirl.

Maybe someone is doing this with us.

you have pretty much summed up ID (but without claims that evolution is wrong). unfortunately for IDers, "maybe someone is doing that with us" is not science. theres no support for it.

reply to post by Key2life

If you can't conceive in principle of how it can be done then don't say it is possible. It only becomes possible when it is done.

Claiming design and thus all living things are evidence of design and thus design has invariably been accomplished and thus possible, is a moot argument. It's speculation; You first need to rule out all other things as well as prove that this designer existed and did the designing and not some other designer.

If something is unknown then nothing can be known about it until it becomes known. You can't presume something doesn't exist unless knowledge proves it doesn't.

And yet you contradictorily proclaim that ID should be treated as if it were known to be a true actuality? I'm not saying it is not possible, but that there is no reason to assume it true without evidence for design. Poking at holes in current scientific knowledge of evolutionary theory is not evidence for design. It's evidence for one's ability to poke at other peoples research and theories and an inability for on to do their own work and research.

How do you know that what ever sent evolution in motion wasn't a program designed by ID. Philosophically it is possible since it can't be proven or unproven. It isn't science yet but that may be our own ignorance.

It is possible, and it's equally possible that the universe developed from the bowel movements of a pink unicorn. Should we treat that equally as if it were science simply because it hasn't been *ruled out*?

The ID I speak about is much different then what has been proposed. The ID I speak of is like a programmer who set the Universe in motion. It created the basic laws of physics and used the quantum principles to set it all in motion.

I have a somewhat similar concept I developed in a separate thread. I don't treat this speculation as if it were fact nor do I demand others to accept it as if it were true nor do I demand that all children should be taught this concept. It's speculation as there is no evidence for it to be true.

I dont think people can tell the diff between science and religion. Science is a study and religion is a belief.

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

what science is being done to prove this theory? it seems to me it is mostly about (failing to) disproe evolution

Intelligent design describes the "who"

Evolution describes the "how"

I've never seen any worth while credible "intelligent design" proponent suggest otherwise.

What i have seen, however, in a BIG BIG BIG way, is a bunch of angry atheist, "im better than you" butt heads try to say "you're an idiot for believing in God, evolution is the answer"

But they can never answer where the first living organism came from.

So, by your own definition of what can be science and what cannot....not even evolution can be considered science.

Sure, it looks into what happens from a certain point forward, but totally ignores where the 1st cell came from.

reply to post by Snarf

Intelligent design describes the "who"

If that is your view of ID, then you don't even understand ID itself.. It's much more than a who based concept.

What i have seen, however, in a BIG BIG BIG way, is a bunch of angry atheist, "im better than you" butt heads try to say "you're an idiot for believing in God, evolution is the answer"

You mean like hypocritical monotheists waging wars against the polytheists because they wouldn't submit to their authority?

Or how about the hypocritical monotheists who want to get all angry and act as if their better than the atheists calling them idiots because they don't believe in God.

Choose your arguments more carefully.

But they can never answer where the first living organism came from.

Evolutionary Theory is not about how life arose, it's about how life changes. Abiogenesis is a theory that does try to answer how life arose and by what conditions are required for life to arise.

So, by your own definition of what can be science and what cannot....not even evolution can be considered science.

Only if you wish to keep holding onto the erroneous opinion of yours.

Sure, it looks into what happens from a certain point forward, but totally ignores where the 1st cell came from.

I don't think you even know what your arguing here. Are you arguing against it for the sake of arguing or do you actually have an intelligently thought out point here?

Because in order for it to exist as any kind of philosophy, it has to begin with the premise that the earth and all people were created by an overachieving God in a week, while he was awol from the dutch army, lol.

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by sirnex

 

you say evolution is a fact.

some forms of evolution do happen

but macro evolution where one species totally changes in to another is not a fact. if you say it is that is simply untrue

Observed instances of marcoevolution (speciation)
Some more observed instances of speciation

Speciation is a proven fact, both in laboratory and in wildlife.

I once fully believed that the theory of evolution could explain life. I ran into problems when I studied the organelle of protein synthesis, the ribosome.

A prokaryotic ribosome consists of two subunits.
“The 30S contains twenty-one proteins and a 16S RNA molecule. The 50S subunit contains about 34 proteins and two RNA molecules, a 23S species and a 5S species.” [1]

Here we have a tiny machine, 200 Angstroms in diameter, consisting of 58 independent parts that function cooperatively to synthesize proteins according to instructions contained in messenger RNA molecules captured by the ribosome.

It has been proven by experiments that the 58 components of the prokaryotic ribosome will self assemble into a functional unit if all the components are simply mixed together.

A problem for the evolution of the ribosome is that, at least for the 30S subunit, that:
“Most of the twenty-one proteins were needed (in addition to16S RNA) for the reassembly of a functionally active 30S particle” [2]
If the ribosome wasn’t ‘designed’ as a functional unit, then there should be a sequence of protein additions, each one adding enough efficiency for ‘natural selection’ to have codified it into the evolving organism.

This is not what experiments have found.

It is necessary for *all* the components to be present at once to form a functional ribosome.

What is the probability that the twenty-one proteins that form the 30S subunit would, by random mutations, occur together simultaneously?
You are kidding yourself if you think it is anything other than extremely remote.

Although the prokaryotes are the most diverse group of organisms in terms of metabolic pathways, they all employ the same system of protein synthesis, using the same twenty (out of 80+ possible) amino acids.
There are no intermediary forms among living organisms to illustrate how the universal acceptance of the current system was achieved.

As for synthesizing the ‘right’ proteins…
A protein of one hundred amino acids is a relatively small protein. How many different proteins of 100 life-using amino acids are there?
The answer is a mind boggling 20 to the100th power.
The number of different 100 AA proteins vastly exceeds the estimated number of particles in the known universe, or the number of seconds since the supposed origin of time (max 20 billion years).
How did life find the ‘right’ 55 proteins out of this enormous number of potential molecules all at once?

Incredulity is stretched to the max.

Additionally, there’s the chicken and egg problem that without the ribosome there would be no way to synthesize the proteins that are components of the ribosome.

If the Mars rover had sent back pictures of defunct machines littering Mars, no doubt some people would claim that as proof that intelligent life once existed on Mars. More ‘scientific’ thinkers though, would say that the machines had simply evolved there by themselves with absolutely no intelligent input.

[1] Stryer, Lubert. Biochemistry (1981) p. 653
[2] Stryer, Lubert. Biochemistry (1981) p. 654