Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

reply to post by resonance


summary:

"im right youre wrong. im not going to bother saying why."


bravo.

you clearly got yourself in over your head.

Heres a little debate about intelligent design that readers of this thread might find interesting.

ID does not have to be about God at all. It can be scientific. Its happening right now and we (humanity) are the ones that are doing it.

Just a little something to ponder

I think people try to hard to mix up the religion part in all of this. Atheism really does not have anything to do with evolution and the Christian religion has nothing to do with ID. Saying that christians suport ID is a false statement and has no more value than me saying the crazy homless guys suport evolution so evolution is a crazy homeless man belief.

The two theories are not even really in opposition it is the religious and non-religious followers of both theories that set up the opposition. The truth is both theories have holes in them but they are not held to the same standards.

reply to post by neformore


no it doesnt HAVE TO be about god. but it is generally meant that way.

scientists have created sperm in a lab. and i think eggs too...but for the most part it is the religious pushing for it (i have no personal exposure to anything else actually...except people saying aliens created man) in an attempt to get religion in the school. im currently skimming through the debate. it's very...long winded(not to offend anyone participating in the debate). it should be a good read though.

Originally posted by zaiger
The two theories are not even really in opposition it is the religious and non-religious followers of both theories that set up the opposition. The truth is both theories have holes in them but they are not held to the same standards. [/quote

because one involves magic and the other involves natural processes.

and i agree, ID is not part of a religion, though it is often tied to one or another. but as i said before, i've never met an IDer that didnt have some religious agenda behind it.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

[edit on 3-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply to post by resonance

you say evolution is a fact.

Your a quick learner; Yes I did say that because that is true.

some forms of evolution do happen

What do you mean 'some forms'?

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

Untrue because you refuse to believe it or because you view evolution as the magical appearance of a horse from a worm in one generation? There are many examples of new species appearing in the wild.

i dont feel like going through quoting everything, but someone said why would god create aids and disease

That question is lost to me, what is that quote supposed to mean and how do you wish I respond to it?

well if you follow the bible, god didnt intend for pain,suffering, etc, it was all due to our fall

What evidence do you have for the God of the bible being real? What evidence do you have against other Gods?

someone also said i was contradicting saying that this shouldnt be evolution vs. religion

You say it isn't, but technically that is the very subject we're discussing right now.

i did not contradict myself at all, plenty of science shows how incredibly unlikely and complex our life here is, and to believe based on faith that it happened by chance, because that is what atheists believe, is more outrageous a claim than a creator.

Actually, you did contradict yourself. Evolutionary Theory, nor any interpretation therein that I know of includes chance as part of the process. Nor do I know of any atheists who believe chance had a major role in the formation of self-replicating molecules.

How do you figure that it is more outrageous? Is it any more outrageous than fifty-nine Gods or aliens from Tau Ceti?

and people claim christians have no proof for their god

Because they don't; You have no more evidence for your personal deity than does someone else for their own personal deity that isn't the same as your personal deity.

if you study, we have plenty

Study what? Your bible? What evidence do you have for the God of your bible being more real than any other God?

most of the old testament has been proven to be real events

Actually, the places mentioned in the bible have been shown to exist, not that the events actually occurred as depicted in the bible. There are also many key events pivotal to the entire faith that have not been shown to have actually occurred. I can name at least a hundred fiction novels that depict places and events, the bible being one of them.

jesus has also been proven to be a real person

Really? I would love to see this evidence, can you back that statement up?

the prophecies predicting jesus' coming were fulfilled literally, it would therefore be reasonable to presume that the rest of it is literal

Actually, Jesus the man never fulfilled any of the prophecies for many reasons. I refer you to the Hebrew bible, in which the original prophecies exist in their original form. Technically, the Messiah has not shown up yet as the second temple has not been built properly as prophesied.

any contradictions people supposedly find are always just certain verses taken out of context. the bible never contradicts itself

Define contradiction for me, I would really like to see what you think it means. You've already shown a mildly faulty understanding of the notion, but a proper definition given by your own understand should prove useful here. Then I can explain many contradictions that exist within the bible.

the predictions the bible makes, that came true, and will come true, have to have been from outside our time domain, that is pretty good proof of my god

Really? What evidence do you have that your God exist outside of something that technically doesn't exist to begin with?

and other gods have way too many flaws, i may consider making another thread about other religions and their problems

What flaws? Thing's like not explaining where they came from, like your God? Or perhaps thing's like having humanized emotions and actions conducted from those emotions like your God?

but too many atheists like to claim evolution as fact..it is not..and without evolution, what is your other theory on life, the universe, our consciousness

Evolution is an observed occurrence in nature, the theory deals with the process of how it occurs in nature. Evolutionary Theory makes no postulations or predictions on where the universe came from. Consciousness is another way of saying self aware, in which all forms of life are self aware.

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

because one involves magic and the other involves natural processes.

Where does magic come in? In the creator theory or life appearing from a sterile environment?

and i agree, ID is not part of a religion, though it is often tied to one or another. but as i said before, i've never met an IDer that didnt have some religious agenda behind it.

Once again the same could be said for evolution and athiests

reply to post by sirnex


I say evolution where one species changes to another is untrue because it is. The only reasonable evidence is bones, which are said to be similar and therefore come from a common ancestor. plus a lot of evidence that does not support that is tossed out, just as it is when the age of the earth is concerned, when human footprints are found next to dinosaur footprints

you obviously have done no study if you do not know that many historical texts validate the bible as well as the existence of jesus

and jesus did fill the role as the messiah just not how the jews expected.

if you read the OT there are 2 images of the messiah one as the suffering servant, the other as a ruler

the suffering servant came and the ruler will come in the future

and the evidence for my god is that his promises and prophecies have come true, unlike all other religions, the bible also has many scientific facts in it that were accurate before they were proven. there is no other religion that compares to christianity's track record

older religions are not similar to what christianity really is. it is not a rule of law; it is not a code of ethics; it is not even an attempt to explain the unexplainable; it is simply the truth that we fell and through his grace god gives us a chance at redemption through jesus christ; thats the main point, but is perverted now days in the church and in the mainstream world. other religions are not like this

you also say evolution does not include chance? it most certainly does. evolution relies on random mutation..the word random goes hand in hand with the chance that a profitable mutation occurs, and is carried on

and i never once said evolution tries to explain origin..it doesnt i know that..but science has no valid answer

Becuase it does not follow the scientific method. If you forgot your middle school science textbooks, the scientific method is, basically as follows.

Step 1: Ask a question.

Step 2: Do background research

Step 3: Construct a hypothesis

Step 4: Test your hypothesis by performing an experiment

Step 5: Analyze data from your experiment and draw a conclusion.

Step 6: Report your results

A well-crafted theory has repeated steps 2 through 5 several times to make sure hte results are sound. Intelligent design employs steps 1, 3, and 6, but skips all the others. It goes like this.

"Why is there so much diversity in life on earth?"
"God must have done it"
"God did it!"
(feel free to replace "god" with "space aliens" or "My Brother Ralph" or whatever suits your fancy)

This is the best case scenario for ID - usually it goes backwards and only uses methods 2 and 3. "I think God did it, so I'm only going to look for evidence proving my claim"

A properly scientific method of ID would follow this pattern

1) Why is there so much diversity of life on Earth?
2) All the information I have accrued regarding the diversity of life points towards an intelligent being creating all of it from scratch
3) It is my hypothesis that an as-yet unknown being hand-crafted the billions of independent organisms that have dwelled on the earth since the beginning of life.
4) I have conducted many experiments to try to find and identify this creator.
5) None of my experiments have managed to contact or expose this creator
6) I have found no evidence for my hypothesis

And then they would go back to step 2, and progress from there. Gather more information, revise the hypothesis as need be, experiment using new data, and draw further conclusions from the data received in the experiments - Even bad science needs to repeat 2-5 lots of times just to be sure.

The task of Intelligent Design is to provide hard proof of a creator. The best way to do this is to, of course, find the creator. If the Intelligent Designer exists, he must have some tangible evidence supporting him, right?

If you're going to say this creator exists "outside nature" - that is, that said creator is supernatural - then you might as well just give up on pretending you're indulging in science.

Additionally, If, if you find this creator... you're then going to need to figure out where it came from! This is the gigantic problem for ID - infinite recursion. A creator that exists, logically, also had to have been created. By something that was no doubt also created. All the way back. you get an infinite loop of creators that you not only have to prove exist, but who's existence you have to explain. If you cop out and say that the creator "just is" you then have to explain its point of origin - leaving you with the same Point-0 quandary that is puzzling Cosmology and molecular biology. Mind, those are the point-0 quandaries that lead ID adherents to laugh at these schools of science.

Funny thing is, evolution is a vastly simpler method to explain the diversity of life than ID can ever hope to be.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by zaiger


the whole... god created aspect is the magic.
evolution doesnt address WHERE life came from or what caused it. nice straw man though.

and...were you implying there is an atheist agenda?
or that you never met someone who pushed for evolution that wasnt an atheist?

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by sirnex

 

I say evolution where one species changes to another is untrue because it is. The only reasonable evidence is bones, which are said to be similar and therefore come from a common ancestor. plus a lot of evidence that does not support that is tossed out, just as it is when the age of the earth is concerned, when human footprints are found next to dinosaur footprints

false. and false. 1 DNA is an even better proof than fossils. 2 those footprints arent human.

you obviously have done no study if you do not know that many historical texts validate the bible as well as the existence of jesus

such as?....

and the evidence for my god is that his promises and prophecies have come true, unlike all other religions, the bible also has many scientific facts in it that were accurate before they were proven. there is no other religion that compares to christianity's track record

*facepalm* "the bible has science therefore its true" is a stupid argument. and what prophecies have come true? im not aware of any. at least none that arent vague and can be applied to just about anything

older religions are not similar to what christianity really is. it is not a rule of law; it is not a code of ethics; it is not even an attempt to explain the unexplainable; it is simply the truth that we fell and through his grace god gives us a chance at redemption through jesus christ; thats the main point, but is perverted now days in the church and in the mainstream world. other religions are not like this

um.....yeah....explain to me how the egyptian gods were an ethical code. and if you hadnt noticed, christianity is based in judaism. one of those...earlier ethical codes. so...it does encompass that. it actually is that plus jesus and other stories.

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
reply to post by zaiger

 

and...were you implying there is an atheist agenda?
or that you never met someone who pushed for evolution that wasnt an atheist?

What i was aying is that your statement about IDers having an agenda is false just like saying people that push evolution have an athiest agenda.

reply to post by zaiger


i never said they all had an agenda. just the ones ive met
that agenda was to try to start sneaking religion into schools

and on a side note.

i dont think ive seen a post yet as to why ID should be taken seriously as a science.

the OP had pretty much digressed into a debate on whether his religion is right or not.

and everything else "supporting" ID was an attempt to cast doubt on evolution.




[edit on 3-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

Gday,

Originally posted by resonance
I would like to ask why many people try to say intelligent design is not scientific

Because it is based on fantasy, and the facts clearly show it is wrong.
Which is why you didn't give any evidence to support ID.

Originally posted by resonance
I have been studying various types of sciences for a while now in an attempt to see what "so clearly disproves" ID.
I can not find whatever it is that supposedly is out there.

Then you have chosen to read creationists, and ignored scientists.

Originally posted by resonance
Evolution from one species to another has too many flaws and many many reputable scientists dont agree with it.

Evolution is directly observed.
No reputable scientists disagree.
Which is why you didn't cite any.

Originally posted by resonance
science also can not explain how life began in the first place.

Nothing to do with evolution.

Originally posted by resonance
none of the theories explain the existence of matter or energy

Nothing to do with evolution.
Or ID.

Originally posted by resonance
or how the first cell formed and when they try they can not repeat the process.

Wrong.
We have a good idea how the first cell formed, which came long long after the first life.

Originally posted by resonance
from all i have studied including physics, astronomy, biology, etc. i believe most of these just show how ID is not probable but NEEDED.

Your belief is wrong.

Originally posted by resonance
There is nothing in science that shows how our complex life came to be without including ID, i would therefore like to ask how so many make that claim

Wrong.

You have obviously never studied anything about evolution, you have just believed creationist lies.

For hard scientific evidence of evolution, look here :
www.talkorigins.org...


K.

Here are the facts :

Over the last century, millions of scientific tests and observations have been made by thousands of scientists in over a hundred countries.

There has NEVER been even ONE which disagreed with evolution.

Millions of tests agree that evolution of correct.
Zero disagree.


NOT ONE experiment has EVER shown evolution wrong.
But MILLIONS agree it is correct.


Of course, creationists just preach otherwise.


K.

Gday,

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

Wrong.
Evolution is clear and certain, there is over-whleming evidence for it, you can read about it here :
www.talkorigins.org...

But sadly, you have chosen to believe creationist lies, without checking the facts.

What do you want to be?
A faithful believer who won't check the facts?
Or someone who actually knows the facts?


My guess is that you will refuse to even look at the T.O. site.
Instead, you will ask your preacher about it, and then repeat his false claims about it.

Show me wrong -
Tell me you WILL actually READ the evidence for macro-evolution here:
www.talkorigins.org...


K.

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by sirnex

 

I say evolution where one species changes to another is untrue because it is. The only reasonable evidence is bones, which are said to be similar and therefore come from a common ancestor. plus a lot of evidence that does not support that is tossed out, just as it is when the age of the earth is concerned, when human footprints are found next to dinosaur footprints

You'd do better if you didn't start off by lying. First, no. Bones are not the only reasonable evidence. They were simply the earliest. These days we have molecular biology and a pretty sound understanding of genetics. Leaping advances in geology, climatology, and even chemistry have also made pretty strong contributions to evolutionary theory. We can open a cell, look at hte organism's "blueprint", compare it to the blueprints of other organisms, then take a look at the past geology and climates where these organisms are found, find other potentially related species, and put it all together to create a pretty strong map of these species' origins and interrelatedness.

And those are dinosaur prints next to other dinosaur prints. At least the ones that aren't made with cold chisels and hammers.

you obviously have done no study if you do not know that many historical texts validate the bible as well as the existence of jesus

Actually contemporary texts validate the existence of Chrisitans, which is a very different thing from validating the existence of Jesus.

and jesus did fill the role as the messiah just not how the jews expected.

if you read the OT there are 2 images of the messiah one as the suffering servant, the other as a ruler

the suffering servant came and the ruler will come in the future

Well, it's not as if one person and only one person has ever suffered. hell, there are people today who's suffering is vastly worse than a few hours getting whipped, then getting crucified, only to die after getting stabbed in the lungs. Hell, there are people who would LOVE to go out that way rather than what they're going through currently.

and the evidence for my god is that his promises and prophecies have come true, unlike all other religions, the bible also has many scientific facts in it that were accurate before they were proven. there is no other religion that compares to christianity's track record

Well, then you must not know your prophecies very well. God said Solomon's kingdom would last forever - it ended up limping along for four hundred years before being obliterated. 400 years isn't a bad run for most nations, but it's not really forever, is it? And if you haven't noticed, "Babylon" is still pretty inhabited (Despite America's best efforts, even). In Isaiah 19, it states the Nile will dry up. Not just the Nile, mind, but the sea as well. Also, God promises that people who are not circumcised will never enter Jerusalem - I'm pretty sure the Baldwins hadn't nipped the tip, and of course the city has a thriving tourist industry today...

As for science... You mean like how god made photosynthetic organisms before he made the sun? How about the claim that hares chew cud? Or how about hte whole "Joshua turning people into lepers" thing? While we're on leprosy, did you know it can be cured by incinerating doves? Did you know according to the bible, the value of Pi is 3? Just 3. How about all those times that the sun just sort of, you know, stops? or falls out of the sky? And do we really want to bring up Jonah?

older religions are not similar to what christianity really is. it is not a rule of law; it is not a code of ethics; it is not even an attempt to explain the unexplainable; it is simply the truth that we fell and through his grace god gives us a chance at redemption through jesus christ; thats the main point, but is perverted now days in the church and in the mainstream world. other religions are not like this

Actually all religions are pretty adamant that htye are the only truth, and that all others aren't like that at all. It's a pretty constant theme.

you also say evolution does not include chance? it most certainly does. evolution relies on random mutation..the word random goes hand in hand with the chance that a profitable mutation occurs, and is carried on

You're conflating several concepts here. Mutation, natural selection, and evolution are not identical. They all touch each other of course, but you can't use them all for the same thing.

Mutation is random. Genes rearrange and divide and get messed around with constantly. Most of the time mutations just don't impact an organism. However these mutations are passed on to the next generation, along with any mutations they may carry independently, and so on and so forth - this is genetic drift, and can lead to speciation without worry about natural selection. Imagine you have a group of sparrows - ordinary little brown birds of some sort. One day a mutation happens, a sparrow hatches and grows red feathers on its wings rather than the usual brown. This doesn't help or hinder it in any way, it breeds, and the gene for red feathers is passed on. A red-winged sparrow who's able to parent enough successful offspring will eventually result in a population of red-winged sparrows that only breed among their own population and not with neighboring brown-winged sparrows. This is speciation by genetic drift.

Sticking with the birds, we go to the famous galapagos finches. Back in the 70's, these islands had a pretty nasty drought that lasted through several generations of the birds. Birds with medium bills suited for a wide range of diets in ideal conditions began to get replaced by members of their species with slightly more robust bills, that were better-adapted to eating the hard, large seeds of plants that were managing the drought. After a few generations, the medium and fine-billed birds were scarce, while heavy-billed birds were the norm. They were still the same species, but a heavier bill was more useful for the environment - and they favored mates with bills similar to their own. Had the drought lasted longer, odds are the smaller-billed birds would have died off on that particular island, leaving their heavy-billed cousins as the sole example of the species - this would be speciation by natural selection.

This is simple.
Science tries to explain nature an natural phenomenon.
ID requires something supernatural.

Gday,

Originally posted by resonance
I say evolution where one species changes to another is untrue because it is.

Wrong.
There is a vast amount of clear and certain evidence that macro-evolution DOES happen.

You can read some of that evidence here:
www.talkorigins.org...

Will you check the facts or not?

Originally posted by resonance
you obviously have done no study if you do not know that many historical texts validate the bible as well as the existence of jesus

Why on earth do creationists always bring up Jesus when talking about ID / evolution?

There are NO historical texts that validate the bible.
Which is why you didn't quote any.

Originally posted by resonance
you also say evolution does not include chance? it most certainly does. evolution relies on random mutation

And also on NON-random selection, and also some other processes.

Originally posted by resonance
..the word random goes hand in hand with the chance that a profitable mutation occurs, and is carried on

We directly observe beneficial mutations occur and get passed on.
We have observed new species evolve.
www.talkorigins.org...

Do you ever plan to check the facts ?


K.

I have a few issues with the OP argument:

I have been studying various types of sciences for a while now in an attempt to see what "so clearly disproves" ID.

Lack of evidence

many many reputable scientists dont agree with it.

If "many" is a relative measurement, then many many many many many many many many more agree with it.

science also can not explain how life began in the first place. none of the theories explain the existence of matter or energy or how the first cell formed and when they try they can not repeat the process.

In the bronze age, the smartest man on the planet would not have been able to design - let alone use - a computer, be able send information with radio waves, or know how to smash atoms. That didn't mean it was impossible.

To be blunt, these arguments are not only weak but have been disputed multiple times in the past.

I'll be honest, science doesn't have all the answers. At the moment, however, all known evidence points towards evolution. Any religious theory is simply lacking proof, plain and simple.

Evolution is a known and proven phenomenon. It has been observed multiple times in nature. The theory of evolution applies this to history in an attempt to explain humanity's origins. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have.

Lastly, this theory is not set in stone. If evidence is found that completely changes the theory or disproves it entirely, then it will change accordingly. On the other hand, if evidence is found that disproves a religion, it is shunned.

So I guess to sum it up, the process of evolution is fact. Until evidence says otherwise, this will remain true.

Cheers

[edit on 3-11-2009 by anonymouse876]

reply to post by resonance

I say evolution where one species changes to another is untrue because it is. The only reasonable evidence is bones, which are said to be similar and therefore come from a common ancestor. plus a lot of evidence that does not support that is tossed out, just as it is when the age of the earth is concerned, when human footprints are found next to dinosaur footprints

DNA is the true marker of a species; Nor have any human footprints been found where they don't belong.

you obviously have done no study if you do not know that many historical texts validate the bible as well as the existence of jesus

Quiet the contrary, I research the monotheistic faith almost on a daily basis, never once have I found any documented records of Jesus or his many miraculous feats.

and jesus did fill the role as the messiah just not how the jews expected.

The Messiah is for the Houses of Israel and Judah, not for the new religion we call Christianity nor was the Messiah ever to be worshiped as if he were God himself. God is against idolatry.

if you read the OT there are 2 images of the messiah one as the suffering servant, the other as a ruler

The Jewish interpretation of the original text is the suffering servant was Israel, not a messianic prophecy.

the suffering servant came and the ruler will come in the future

If the above interpretation is true by the people in which the Messiah is to come for, then your premise falls apart.

and the evidence for my god is that his promises and prophecies have come true, unlike all other religions, the bible also has many scientific facts in it that were accurate before they were proven. there is no other religion that compares to christianity's track record

What prophecies have come true, let's leave out the Messianic prophecies for now. The biblical description of the world is far from accurate and has never been observed in reality. In fact, we can take other religious teachings of the cosmic egg giving birth to the universe as meaning the big bang, which is more on par with what we observe and know about our universe today. To the point of taking that interpretation and showing it more valid and true than God spoke everything into being.

older religions are not similar to what christianity really is. it is not a rule of law; it is not a code of ethics; it is not even an attempt to explain the unexplainable; it is simply the truth that we fell and through his grace god gives us a chance at redemption through jesus christ; thats the main point, but is perverted now days in the church and in the mainstream world. other religions are not like this

Many other religions do give laws, ethics and attempt to explain where the universe came from. They are no more equally invalid than your religion.

you also say evolution does not include chance? it most certainly does. evolution relies on random mutation..the word random goes hand in hand with the chance that a profitable mutation occurs, and is carried on

I have never heard of this from the theory itself, could you please cite your sources.

and i never once said evolution tries to explain origin..it doesnt i know that..but science has no valid answer

what was the purpose of this statement you made?

and without evolution, what is your other theory on life, the universe, our consciousness

I'll await a response before I call you a hypocrite.

You have consistently failed to produce any evidence in favor of your God as being the hand behind ID as well as failing to produce any theories or evidences that refute the possibility of fifty-nine Gods or aliens from Tau Ceti being behind ID. For all intents and purposes, it appears that this thread is exactly what you claim it is not. For that, I will call you a hypocrite.