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

---

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.



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.

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

---

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.



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.



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*?



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.