Intelligent Design is Dead

Originally posted by addygrace
There are many ways to verify the Bible, scientifically.

With the theories most likely to explain the universe and everything in it, ID is the strongest, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. What did the Bible say about the beginning of the universe? First it said the universe had a beginning. Second, the universe is expanding. Not until the 20th century, did the majority of scientists believe the universe had a beginning. For their to be a creator of the universe, their had to be a point when the universe wasn't yet created. The Bible knew that many years before scientists did.

I keep hearing these claims but haven't seen the science to back it up. We're talking scientific evidence of intelligent design, which nobody is providing. Where does the bible say that the universe is expanding? The beginning of the universe is a mystery to science right now. Where is your science that shows god did it? You are using classic god of the gaps, since science doesn't know, it was automatically god.

I said it would show that ID is not dead. I never said it would be a paper specifically about ID investigations. But you people always lack reading comprehensions, and I guess, like I predicted, they didn't have property X Y Z... My argument was clearly that it was still being discussed and therefore not dead.. But yeah, strawman away.

Screw this. I'm outta here.

We've been asking you for scientific evidence of intelligent design since the beginning and you claimed it existed. I guess that can't include papers specifically about ID??? That's a riot. That's like if you requested evidence of evolution, and I posted a bunch of stuff about volcanoes. "Oh, I didn't realize the evidence needed to be specifically about evolution!" What else do you think we were talking about? When you claim something is scientific, you need to back it up. That's why this is so funny. You come in with one liners, acting like your views are 100% accurate set in stone, and then post a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with ID, while at the same time claiming I know nothing about it. ID is dead because it hasn't made any progress SCIENTIFICALLY since it was made up. If anybody can post anything to contradict this, I'd love to see it.

reply to post by Barcs


Is the big bang described in the Bible? That's what I was showing. Are you denying the Bible says this?
The Bible also talks about the spreading out of the heavens. That's what we actually see in science.

Originally posted by addygrace
reply to post by Barcs

 

Is the big bang described in the Bible? That's what I was showing. Are you denying the Bible says this?
The Bible also talks about the spreading out of the heavens. That's what we actually see in science.

Where does it say that?

Originally posted by addygrace
reply to post by Barcs

 

Is the big bang described in the Bible? That's what I was showing. Are you denying the Bible says this?
The Bible also talks about the spreading out of the heavens. That's what we actually see in science.

Maybe you aren't understanding. We are talking about objective scientific evidence here. Not referencing ancient story books to find loose connections to science today.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by addygrace
reply to post by Barcs

 

Is the big bang described in the Bible? That's what I was showing. Are you denying the Bible says this?
The Bible also talks about the spreading out of the heavens. That's what we actually see in science.

Maybe you aren't understanding. We are talking about objective scientific evidence here. Not referencing ancient story books to find loose connections to science today.

The Bible stated this thousands of years before science accepted it. It's fine with me, if only objective evidence that can only be seen with your own eyes is the only evidence you'll accept, but it raises a few questions. One question is what objective evidence have you seen with your own eyes that holds up with your own worldview? Another question is; if you did believe the Bible to be the truth and your authority, would you want to verify what is written in the Bible, and make sure it lines up with what you see in the world?

I'm basically showing, unless God is non-existent, ID will never be dead. ID is God's fingerprint. The Bible is telling us what we should observe. We live in a finely-tuned universe, that's also finely-tuned for scientific discoveries. God wants us to find him, but anybody can easily blind themselves to any idea, if they have a lot invested.

Originally posted by addygrace
The Bible stated this thousands of years before science accepted it. It's fine with me, if only objective evidence that can only be seen with your own eyes is the only evidence you'll accept, but it raises a few questions. One question is what objective evidence have you seen with your own eyes that holds up with your own worldview? Another question is; if you did believe the Bible to be the truth and your authority, would you want to verify what is written in the Bible, and make sure it lines up with what you see in the world?

How are you going to claim the bible describes the big bang, yet not provide the quotes? I don't care what the bible says. A few loosely worded passages seemingly describing something without any scientific terminology, does not prove anything. Your personal interpretation of the world around us is not objective evidence, it is your opinion on the complexity of nature and your personal interpretation of the bible.

I'm basically showing, unless God is non-existent, ID will never be dead. ID is God's fingerprint. The Bible is telling us what we should observe. We live in a finely-tuned universe, that's also finely-tuned for scientific discoveries. God wants us to find him, but anybody can easily blind themselves to any idea, if they have a lot invested.

False. The universe is not finely tuned. We are on one of the only known planets that can support life. If it was finely tuned, there would be a planet at every star with life on it. Finely tuned is simply your guess or opinion. Again, we are talking ID AS A SCIENCE, not your opinion of the bible and the world. If you want to defend ID and claim it is not dead, then its simple. Post evidence of its scientific progress over the past few years. Show us how that science is becoming accepted in the scientific community. Obviously I already know you can't/won't provide this, so the thread title is dead on accurate. ID hasn't been recognized in any courts, any classrooms or any scientific communities/journals as actual science because IT IS NOT. That is the point of the entire thread. If you disagree, provide the scientific evidence.

More evidence this morning that intelligent design is dead: Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory over Creationists

Private UK schools that teach intelligent design or creationism will have their government funding stopped.

A victory for science and common sense.

reply to post by Astyanax


It's probably because any person who has an ounce of intelligence and can read one chapter out of a book about evolution understands that it's the scientific explanation of how live develops and changes that best fits the observations, facts, evidence, and experiments.

Intelligent design is rooted in ignorance, science for stupid people as I like to call it. Sorry if that offends anybody, but seriously, even comparing evolution to creationism is laughable.

Creationists love to throw out the half-assed argument that both of them are theories, as if that gives their fairy tale beliefs more credibility, but what they fail to realize is that evolution is a scientifically accepted theory that matches all available evidence and observations, while creationism is just a fairy tale belief taken from some old book which also contains a talking snake and some guy parting the Red Sea.

Intelligent design is a joke.

I have followed this thread from its start and have found it to be extremely entertaining and intriguing. What interests me most is the argument put forth by some that ID is pseudo-science and therefore not worthy of recognition. Can we disregard a theory just because it cannot be proved by currently accepted scientific method? I say no.

Now, for those of you who reject ID because it is non-science, I ask: Has speciation, the most fundamental process in Darwin’s theory of evolution ever been observed? If not, could someone please describe how our scientific methods can be applied to accomplish the observation.




T

reply to post by taderhold

I have followed this thread from its start and have found it to be extremely entertaining and intriguing. What interests me most is the argument put forth by some that ID is pseudo-science and therefore not worthy of recognition. Can we disregard a theory just because it cannot be proved by currently accepted scientific method? I say no.

Well then, I take it you also believe in unicorns and elves then...because just like ID, that's pseudo-science too. What about mermaids?

In short: If you base your opinions on facts, rationality and logic, the correct answer is YES. And ID isn't even a theory, because for it to be a theory, it would require objective evidence as backup. It has none, ergo, it's not a scientific theory.

Now, for those of you who reject ID because it is non-science, I ask: Has speciation, the most fundamental process in Darwin’s theory of evolution ever been observed?

Yes...multiple times...not only in labs, but also in nature: LINK

And we're actively applying it in modern medicine too. If it were wrong, we wouldn't have many of the meds we have today.

That's why evolution (and speciation) is a scientific theory fully backed up by objective evidence and facts, while ID is a myth that isn't backed up by rationality or logic...and even worse...often demonstrably wrong.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Contrary to your assertion otherwise, a theory is: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

I know I'm not intellectually competent to debate an issue like this with someone as educated as you, however, I want you, as I requested before, to describe how our current scientific methods can be applied to accomplish the observation of speciation. If you cannot, just say so.

Originally posted by taderhold
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Contrary to your assertion otherwise, a theory is: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

I know I'm not intellectually competent to debate an issue like this with someone as educated as you, however, I want you, as I requested before, to describe how our current scientific methods can be applied to accomplish the observation of speciation. If you cannot, just say so.

Click the link I posted...it explains it in great detail, including showing several examples. Also, you are confusing "theory" with "scientific theory". It's not the same. Also explained in the link I posted.

reply to post by Astyanax

Oh look. Another one believing that ID and creationism is the exact same thing. What a surprise.

Originally posted by sinthia
reply to post by Astyanax

 

ID is not dead. If you check out richard dawkins own website you can enter a competition to try and explain the origins of life. Desperation or what!!!!!!!

WTF does that have to do with ID being dead or not? Your lack of intelligence is astounding.

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Oh look. Another one believing that ID and creationism is the exact same thing. What a surprise.

It doesn't matter, they are both:

- not backed by science

- dishonestly represented by fundamentalists

- demonstrably wrong

- have not a single shred of objective evidence behind them.

ID is dead and it's been proven in this thread. It hasn't made any scientific progress at all other than one paper getting mistakenly published. It hasn't been forced into classrooms, it has been denounced in the scientific community as being unscientific. What more is there? Don't get so hung up on what words people use to describe it. Creationists and ID advocates both think that life was created, and 90% of the time they won't even admit what their own beliefs are. They both use similar arguments. Both are wrong when they claim it is anything more than an opinion or faith, and attack evolution with no knowledge of it. It's the same thing with a different name, claiming ignorance when asked who created it. "Durrrr, we don't know, we just know it was created because OMG, DNA is like totally so complex and stuff!"

*deleted*

Originally posted by Razimus
No evidence? The planet alone is evidence, solar system, the galaxy, the universe. A ship cannot exist without there having been a ship-builder, there cannot be a planet without there having been a planet-builder. Science can't measure faith, if it could, it would cease to be faith. Faith isn't a belief in something that is false, that is 'believing in something that is false', faith is believing in something that is true, but not seen, not fully revealed, the mystery must remain for the faith to remain.

How's this for an experiment:

Ask the invisible being who created the universe 1 yes or no question, but before asking, ponder on that question for 1 month, when asking do so in a quiet place, while asking actually muster up the possibility that an answer can be received.

How many scientists have attempted the above experiment I have outlined? I would say less than a few. Using the above method I have reproduced all the proof I could ever want or need, direct communication cannot be denied, it also cannot be proven to anyone but the receiver. The only proof that can be offered is the above experiment, try it or do not, but I have noticed in my time that the only ones who have failed to at least attempt the above experiment are cowardly and/or arrogant.

You need to see a psychiatrist.....IMMEDIATELY

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Oh look. Another one believing that ID and creationism is the exact same thing. What a surprise.

It IS the same thing...both imply some intelligence creating things without presenting any proof or objective evidence supporting that claim. The only difference is that people now seem to prefer to call it ID over creationism because creationism is associated with the bat# crazy stuff like global floods, talking snakes, and all the other nonsense.

reply to post by MrXYZ
I appreciate your reply to my post and the included link to Wikipedia, however, it appears I have not sufficiently provoked the response I was seeking.

Throughout this thread I have seen many posts which assert that ID proponents cannot provide any science to support their claims. This fact is blatantly apparent to me also. The same posters are always quick to provide links to sources supporting evolution and/or Darwinism but, I wondered, do they really understand the processes of evolution.

Thus the reason for my request to provide an explanation of how they could illustrate speciation -- the most fundamental process in Darwin’s theory of evolution -- in a lab or or with any other valid scientific method. I suspect they cannot. Speciation has never been observed in real time.

We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs—but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened.

Again, I ask any of those posters, which are always asking for the science to support ID, to provide an example of speciation by any scientific method without relying on links to Wikipedia. If they cannot, does that mean that evolution is not supported by science? Of course not.

I know I will be perceived to be an ID freak because of this post, however, I am not. I am extremely interested in the debate, but not presumptuous enough to think that I know the origins of life on earth. And will continue the debate as long as it does not get too sarcastic or petty.

I'm not religious, but theory that states everything became to existence exploding from nothing (nothing exploded, get it?) and the nature rules (including evolution) somehow accidentally applied after, sounds ridiculous as something like tornado sweeping through a junkyard creating fully functional Boeing 747...

not much different than belief in some angry white bearded grandfather on heavens scaring his designed children with a thunder...