Intelligent Design is Dead

reply to post by Astyanax


Want to hear the hard truth about your facade victory you think you're parading around with? Well... it's the fact that ID & evolution have nothing to do with each other. ID is simply a hypothesis. This hypothesis has not been tested as other hypotheses have not been tested either. Evolution is a theory. It has been tested and can prove that there is a diversity of life.

So what is the big deal about evolutionists wanting to disprove ID? ID CANNOT be disproved by evolution, because it states nothing relating towards creation... it merely states how things are and how life has developed. Evolution has not answered what life came from.

Nothing will answer what life came from. All we can do is either imagine or believe the ancient Book that has been set in front of us. What will you do? Ridicule it? Accept it? Who knows?

All I know is... ID shouldn't be taught as a science, because it does not constitute as science.

The trick question is - Does ID constitute as a belief to revolve one's life around? This faith factor comes into play and it really draws on one's soul. Did our entire creation come from one all powerful, benevolent being?

Well if you actually seek God out, you will find the answer for yourself. If you pretend to know all about the writings and read it all with a loaded mentality and an anti-acceptance... then you will gain nothing. This isn't something a school should teach.. School teaches you what will give you success in the observable world. Seeking God is what gives you more than what school teaches you.

This is where one need to decide what to do. If you want to ridicule what has been set before you because you can't accept it well.... then don't. Don't take advantage of what wonders have been provided to you - right in front of your face. The Kingdom of Heaven is meant to be taken advantage of now. In a sense of where you will prosper and allow others to prosper through you.

If you do not accept this well... that is your choice. Do not talk about it as you know of it until you have truly sought it.

TL;DR - ID vs Evolution does not make sense. ID could have created Evolution - and Evolution could have come from nothing. But what could have come from nothing?

reply to post by squiz

Being dishonest about what I said? Nice.

okay, so evolution is the winner?

even though most scientists agree that genetic shifts like mutations, drifting and even natural selection
have been shown to have a better than half negative result and mutations almost a 98% bad effect. ie cancer?

but you guys are probable right.

DNA is so simple to create and reorder only holding about 1.25 gigabytes of information
its far better to think that all life climbed out of the same cup of primordial soup.

the giraffe, the wolf, cats and dogs(a good point here) as well as men and women.

Darwin must be correct though because Intelligent Design is dead.

math.ucr.edu...

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by squiz

 

Being dishonest about what I said? Nice.

Certainly not. You said it yourself in regards to the legal victories since Dover.

Because the media doesn't brand them as "wins", they recognize them for what they are -- inherently unconstitutional legislation trying to shoehorn theology into public schools under the guise of science

Critical evaluation of a theory is not theology I'm afraid, It's the scientific method.
Go back and read those cases and tell me where the theology is in those rulings? Um who's being dishonest here?

Clearly a biased humanist, troll thread. sales of books and blog traffic means little in the grand scale of things and i am sure a follower of ID could find simillar numbers for atheist offerings. Nothing in life, how ever it started, supersedes the golden rule…which is to be polite and this thread is a troll motivated piece of materialist propaganda.

Originally posted by mandroids
Clearly a biased humanist, troll thread. sales of books and blog traffic means little in the grand scale of things and i am sure a follower of ID could find simillar numbers for atheist offerings. Nothing in life, how ever it started, supersedes the golden rule…which is to be polite and this thread is a troll motivated piece of materialist propaganda.

Not really. It's based on the simple fact that ID isn't and never will be science. The problem is a lot of people still claim otherwise and are flat out wrong. Intelligent design as a science will never hold water, as its been determined in court, in the scientific community and by the scientific method. That aspect is most certainly dead in any realistic form. Sure, there will always be believers and there will always be the crazies that will dishonestly promote religion as anything more than a faith based belief system or moral guide. ID as a science is beyond dead. Now religion as a faith based belief system is completely different, but that's not what this thread is about.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by mandroids
Clearly a biased humanist, troll thread. sales of books and blog traffic means little in the grand scale of things and i am sure a follower of ID could find simillar numbers for atheist offerings. Nothing in life, how ever it started, supersedes the golden rule…which is to be polite and this thread is a troll motivated piece of materialist propaganda.

Not really. It's based on the simple fact that ID isn't and never will be science. The problem is a lot of people still claim otherwise and are flat out wrong. Intelligent design as a science will never hold water, as its been determined in court, in the scientific community and by the scientific method. That aspect is most certainly dead in any realistic form. Sure, there will always be believers and there will always be the crazies that will dishonestly promote religion as anything more than a faith based belief system or moral guide. ID as a science is beyond dead. Now religion as a faith based belief system is completely different, but that's not what this thread is about.

edit on 28-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Case in point.

IF you have an open mind, may i suggest the following reference: The End of Materialism by Charles Tart. Ph.D

Originally posted by mandroids

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by mandroids
Clearly a biased humanist, troll thread. sales of books and blog traffic means little in the grand scale of things and i am sure a follower of ID could find simillar numbers for atheist offerings. Nothing in life, how ever it started, supersedes the golden rule…which is to be polite and this thread is a troll motivated piece of materialist propaganda.

Not really. It's based on the simple fact that ID isn't and never will be science. The problem is a lot of people still claim otherwise and are flat out wrong. Intelligent design as a science will never hold water, as its been determined in court, in the scientific community and by the scientific method. That aspect is most certainly dead in any realistic form. Sure, there will always be believers and there will always be the crazies that will dishonestly promote religion as anything more than a faith based belief system or moral guide. ID as a science is beyond dead. Now religion as a faith based belief system is completely different, but that's not what this thread is about.

edit on 28-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Case in point.

IF you have an open mind, may i suggest the following reference: The End of Materialism by Charles Tart. Ph.D

So I post something that completely contradicts your argument, and is factually accurate but it's 'case in point' for you. Gotcha.

Actually ID does makes several predictions, some of which have been met. So for a non science it's doing quite well demonstating actual science.

For example It predicts "junk" DNA will have a purpose. This is unfolding daily.

It predicts complex and functionally specified arrangements of systems. This has been demonstrated with genetic knockout experiments. This has never been falsified on any scientific grounds.

It predicts a higher level of organization of body plans above that of DNA. Tantalizing hints have recently emerged in mapping of the bioelectric signals shaping the face of a tadpole.

It also predicts that the ratio of functioning to non-functioning amino acid sequences that form functionality will be extremely low. Meaning random mutation alone is not enough to scan the vast sea of sequential amino acid possibilities within reasonable timeframe. This one has also been met.

I'm sure there are more.

Anyway how is it that multi universe theories, parrallel dimensions, black hole science, big bang cosmology and it's vast array of unfalsifiable claims etcc... How is it that these untestable unfalsifiable theories can be classified as science? If you think it's evidence then you have a lower threshold of belief than I do.

Originally posted by squiz
Actually ID does makes several predictions, some of which have been met. So for a non science it's doing quite well demonstating actual science.

For example It predicts "junk" DNA will have a purpose. This is unfolding daily.

It predicts complex and functionally specified arrangements of systems. This has been demonstrated with genetic knockout experiments. This has never been falsified on any scientific grounds.

It predicts a higher level of organization of body plans above that of DNA. Tantalizing hints have recently emerged in mapping of the bioelectric signals shaping the face of a tadpole.

It also predicts that the ratio of functioning to non-functioning amino acid sequences that form functionality will be extremely low. Meaning random mutation alone is not enough to scan the vast sea of sequential amino acid possibilities within reasonable timeframe. This one has also been met.

I'm sure there are more.

Anyway how is it that multi universe theories, parrallel dimensions, black hole science, big bang cosmology and it's vast array of unfalsifiable claims etcc... How is it that these untestable unfalsifiable theories can be classified as science? If you think it's evidence then you have a lower threshold of belief than I do.

You do realize that the scientific method involves observation and experiments, right? It's not just about getting lucky and getting a prediction right. Where does the bible mention DNA, acid sequences, aminos or anything scientific about them? The bible doesn't talk about experiments, or falsifiability. It isn't scientific in the least, it only makes claims about what people believed in the past.

Multi dimensions, parallel dimensions, and quantum mechanics are not true science. They are mostly mathematical theories based on our current understanding of the universe and its forces. They can't be observed or experimented on, but the math adds up.

reply to post by Barcs

Red herring... Bible has nothing to do with ID.

Originally posted by Astyanax
So says PZ Myers, biologist and gallant anti-creationist, in his latest post on Pharyngula, quoting Jason Rosenhouse, a former Kansas schoolteacher fighting the good fight on Evolution Blog. And I think they are right.

As Myers explains in his post, the ID movement is now twenty years old and in substantive terms has achieved absolutely nothing. No school teaches intelligent design in science class as an alternative to evolution. The Institute of Creation Research and other institutions like it have not been able to find a single piece of evidence to substantiate ID. Their best bet, the fallacious concept of irreducible complexity, has been debunked time and time again.

Neither have ID supporters and creationists been able to cast even the faintest shadow of scientific doubt on the theory of evolution.

Meanwhile, out in the public forum, ID books have stopped selling, and ID blogs are losing followers. ID proponents are actually out there complaining that the evolutionists they attacked earlier are now ignoring them. Apparently even our attention is better than no attention at all; the poor things must be feeling very unloved.

Here on Above Top Secret, where rigourous scientific standards are not applied, you might expect creationists and IDists to do better; yet despite the plethora of threads on the subject in this forum, the score remains Creationists 0, Evolutionists Every Single Game. Our creationist friends here may beg to differ, but the threads speak for themselves.

I think it is time for supporters of scientific truth to quietly celebrate a hard-earned victory.

Some things must suffer, die, then be reborn for the minds of men to believe them.

Truth is such a thing.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs

 

Red herring... Bible has nothing to do with ID.

I love your one liners. I just realized that you aren't the person I responded to after I typed a long response, haha. I was merely asking Squibbs for evidence to back up the claims about science that supports intelligent design. I used "bible" because I thought that's what he was referring to. I'd be interested to know what specifically that would be then.

But seriously, saying the bible has nothing to do with intelligent design, is like saying the fossil record has nothing to do with evolution, or like saying spaghetti has nothing to do with pasta. The bible claims god intelligently designed people, and the entire religion(s) is based on that aspect, so the fallacy accusation is pretty funny actually.

How about this:

Please provide objective evidence that shows intelligent design instead of random claims. Is that phrased better?
Simple way to show us that ID isn't dead. Post the scientific progress it has made. Where are the peer reviewed science papers and studies? I'm all ears.

I believe christ made me.....I love him for it.....I believe his message

reply to post by Barcs

I have one-liners because when I ask something it's ignored, and when I say something it's full of ridicule and dishonest replies. So I refrain from discussing, and will simply point out where the faults of certain arguments are. If you bring up the bible in a discussion about ID, it shows you never actually investigated what ID is, but simply repeat the whole "it's creationism" ridicule. It's simply being part of the evolutionist and anti-creationist herd. If I would ask what the difference between creationism and ID is, you wouldn't be able to tell me, and neither would 99% of people here who call themselves educated, critical thinkers and open-minded.

reply to post by vasaga


Does it honestly matter if anyone knows the difference between the two? The only thing that anyone really needs to know about the two, is that they are both philosophy, not science. You can not prove either one right or wrong, so.... Why does it matter to know the difference between the two? When evidence* emerges, they will have a possibility of being widely accepted in the scientific field.

*Actual evidence, not trying to prove a part of Evolution wrong by poorly understanding it.


Just for the record, I don't think intelligent design or creationism (what's the difference?) will ever surface evidence of any kind.

reply to post by Tony4211

Does it matter if a whale is a fish or a mammal?

Edit: And it's funny that with your last sentence you're basically confirming what I said in my previous post.. And uh.. If you don't even know the differences, which suggests you actually don't know what ID is, then you don't know if it's science or not, or if it's philosophy or not, or if it has evidence or not. And evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive, but since you don't know what ID is, I guess it can't be expected that you know that either...

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs

 

I have one-liners because when I ask something it's ignored, and when I say something it's full of ridicule and dishonest replies. So I refrain from discussing, and will simply point out where the faults of certain arguments are. If you bring up the bible in a discussion about ID, it shows you never actually investigated what ID is, but simply repeat the whole "it's creationism" ridicule. It's simply being part of the evolutionist and anti-creationist herd. If I would ask what the difference between creationism and ID is, you wouldn't be able to tell me, and neither would 99% of people here who call themselves educated, critical thinkers and open-minded.

You talk about getting ignored, while at the same time ignoring everything I posted. I have quite thoroughly investigated BOTH ID and creationist claims about science and evolution. I have not seen a single one hold up to scientific scrutiny. It doesn't matter what technical label you put the movement into, it's about parading the theory of intelligent design as science. Whether it's the bible, pseudo science websites, kent hovind or the quaran. The objective evidence behind an intelligent force or being creating the earth and humans does not exist. Or maybe it does... that's why I'm asking for some evidence. Again, if it's not dead and actually scientific you can back it up with proof. Good luck.

Thread Summary: You're Wrong, no you're wrong, NO you are!!

reply to post by PlayeR87

Well summarized. I must say it's gratifying to see one's children doing so famously...

Allow me a summary of my own. A proponent of ID on this thread has posted some examples of legislation that permits intelligent design to be discussed in some American classrooms and has claimed that fifty peer-reviewed scientific papers written from a pro-ID standpoint have been published. These are the only evidences for life in the ID movement that have been provided since my last post in this thread.

Barcs and iterationzero have already dealt sufficiently with these 'evidences'. The claimant for fifty papers has posted links to only one or two, so we are left to wonder what publications the other papers appeared in, and who the review boards consisted of. Given the elaborate and habitual deception that is the modus operandi of creationism, we shall need very detailed information about such claims before believing a word of them. Clearly these 'peer-reviewed papers' have not found acceptance in the wider scientific community, which continues, rightly, to disregard the ID hypothesis.

The legislation, for its part, is trivial. The point is, of course, that 'intelligent design' cannot be taught in science classes because the law recognizes that it is not science.

Is this is 'life', then the rat I disengaged from the claws of my cats last week and buried in my garden must also be feeling pretty chirpy.

*

reply to post by taderhold

Your member ID, Astyanax Mind Firmly Closed, is quite revealing.

Well, it was carefully chosen. But exactly what do you think it reveals?