Intelligent Design?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
ID is pseudoscience. It could be science, but the ID people are too afraid to make falsifiable predictions.

Because they have no interest in actual science. They are only interested in tearing down evolution, doesn't anyone get that part?
Why do think they have not made predictions based on their so-called science? Because they could care less. They just want to tear down science so they can prove their worthless dogma is right. Like I said, if they succeeded in say, winning major court battles and forced all the schools in the US to stop teaching evolution, they would drop ID like a hot potato and go back to their stupid invisible friend gospel.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Because they have no interest in actual science. They are only interested in tearing down evolution, doesn't anyone get that part?
Why do think they have not made predictions based on their so-called science? Because they could care less. They just want to tear down science so they can prove their worthless dogma is right. Like I said, if they succeeded in ...[text shortened]... tion, they would drop ID like a hot potato and go back to their stupid invisible friend gospel.

I agree. However calling it stupid tends to lead them to their really stupid "elitist scientists not letting ID in out of fear" argument. Perhaps better to call them unscientific and leave it at that. Although actually we're in the science froum now so maybe not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again you are turning against ID because of people who hold to that
that! That is not giving ID a fair shake, should I reject evolution not
on the bases of evolution, but because I fiind someone who believes
in it to be an A$$ all together! That is brain dead thinking in my point
of view, you either look at the questions being asked by it or you
do not ...[text shortened]... hich I have yet seen the connection to when looking at just the
questions ID does ask.
Kelly

Pull your head in KJ.

My previous post merely showed that when the "father" of ID launched this movement, his speeches regulary included bible quotes and a clear link with religion, god and the church.

All I was saying was that ID is based from religion, it's just dressed up differently in an attempt to get creationism into a science class.

Was I rejecting ID purely on the basis of its founder or the fact that the guy is a "born again christian" ?? No, I did not offer any reason why we should turn against ID, I merely indicated why ID is a dressed up version of creationism i.e religious.

However, if you want an opinion:

I reject ID because it claims to be a science, when actually it is a pseudo science. ID wants to distance itself from creationism, yet at the same time it distances itself from science by having never made a testable hypothesis. Does ID even have one iota of evidence in its favour? If its a science, please show us one link to a peer reviewd journal indicating any predictions made by the ID hypothesis that has been verified? and of course KJ as its nothing to do with religion in your eyes, this source will of course be a science journal right? not some religious text.

Like I said at the start, pull your head in before you rant about something I wasn't even claiming.

Summary: ID = religion = creationism, I reject ID because it claims to be a science without being scientific.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You must make it into something other than science, you cannot
just look at the questions being asked for the sake of getting the
answers correct?
Kelly

Very well, please suggest an expirment (or a set thereof) that will be able to prove or refute ID.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you reject ID because of people not because of the questions
and answers that abound in the idea?
Kelly

The problem is that the letters ID mean different things to different people.
1. To some people it means a bunch of creationists who tried to get some nonsense taught in school classrooms in the hope that they could discourage the teaching of evolution.

2. To others - as you apparently do - it means the concept that it might be possible to show that what we see in the world today is necessarily the work of an intelligent designer.

There may be other views of it too.

I for one have no problem with the concept in 2. However, unless someone has actually shown that it is in fact the case or at the very least provided evidence or suggested experiments to try etc, it remains nothing more than an unsupported hypothesis.
To my knowledge every attempt to find support for the hypothesis has so far failed.
Also it should be noted that at no point does the hypothesis actually contradict the bulk of the theory of evolution, though to support the hypothesis it would be necessary to show that the theory of evolution is not the best explanation for particular phenomena.

When people say they reject ID they usually mean they reject the claims by certain people that there is good evidence for the ID hypothesis or that they are proceeding with their study of ID in a scientific manner.
You must realize that when ID has no supporters that are currently studying it in a scientific manner it is likely to get rejected or at least ignored.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem is that the letters ID mean different things to different people.
1. To some people it means a bunch of creationists who tried to get some nonsense taught in school classrooms in the hope that they could discourage the teaching of evolution.

2. To others - as you apparently do - it means the concept that it might be possible to show that w ...[text shortened]... e currently studying it in a scientific manner it is likely to get rejected or at least ignored.

Considering ID is not even close to being science, merely a religious/polical means to attack a real science and with never an iota of effort to produce new science. That is the furthest thing from their blinded minds. It's as obvious as the nose on my face they would drop ID in a trice once (as if) they win the battle against evolution.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I say (B). Take it to where it should be at the first time.

Science Forum is infested with religious garbage. Science should be a religion free place where science things could be discussed.

Religious people have their place. They don't like science peoplle go there, science people don't want religious people go here.

I'm a science person AND a religious person.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I'm a science person AND a religious person.

Yes, but you cannot use scientific methods with religion.
And you cannot use religious methods in science.

Religion is religion and science is science. There is a border between them.

You are always welcomed to the Science Forum if you want to talk about science. Religious matters should go into the Spiritual Forum.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, but you cannot use scientific methods with religion.
And you cannot use religious methods in science.

Religion is religion and science is science. There is a border between them.

You are always welcomed to the Science Forum if you want to talk about science. Religious matters should go into the Spiritual Forum.

I tend to welcome anyone, in any forum, with any topic, anytime. But that's just me.🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, but you cannot use scientific methods with religion.
And you cannot use religious methods in science.

Religion is religion and science is science. There is a border between them.

You are always welcomed to the Science Forum if you want to talk about science. Religious matters should go into the Spiritual Forum.

I see nothing wrong with a thread in the science forum if its purpose is to educate people in science even if that education includes showing why a particular concept is unscientific. If the discussion moves to the existence of God it should move, but if the discussion is 'why ID is unscientific' or 'why evolution is a good theory' then I see no reason why it should not be here.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I tend to welcome anyone, in any forum, with any topic, anytime. But that's just me.🙂

The very idea of having Forum with different names is that the Forum should have threads with these very topics. Sport Forum for Sport discussions, Chess Forum for Chess discussions. But in Science Forum there is a lot of discussion about evolution's right to be, Intelligent Design, Creationism and other subjects sprung out of religion.
I say, as I've always said, bring religious discusions into the Spiritual Forum where Spiritual subjects should be discussed. Let Science Forum be a Science Forum where Scientific discussions in scientific threads.

Originally posted by Mexico
I believe I started a thread over in spirituality a few months ago asking for the scientific basis of ID and I never got a clear answer. Those that come close have little grounding in science.

ID isn't accepted be the scientific community at large because it's not based on good science. If the questions asked by ID'ers we're valid and scientific then they' ey'll do, which is what they always do. Is poke holes in accepted scientific theories.

If you think science is the pursuit of reality and truth, the way things
are without "agenda" or anything else that may alter either truth or
reality from how we should perceive it; why wouldn’t that search for
it not include ID if the evidence took you or whoever there?

As a creationist I see both the atheistic and theistic views about
ID and evolution as the same with respect to they both have
starting points they hold to and move on from there. One sees the
reality around with a God/gods while the other does not, and if
we were trying to be true to ‘science’ both points of view must be
accepted possible truth, to reject either simply because it does not
fit within the realm of personal view about reality is to cut off
reality if the one we selected is wrong.

The only arguments I have seen against ID so far are when people
call it religion, or they have attempted to name a person who agrees
with ID run them down thereby ruining ID by their characterization
assassination of that individual.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
I reject ID because it's so full of unverifiable statements as to be laughable. For instance, if there was an intelligent designer, who designed it? You keep denying the connection between creationism and ID. In fact, despite your denials, they are one and the same.
The other thing about ID, the ID'ers and creationists have no real interest in science. If OD and the Almighty and all that BS. And if you are offended, frankly, I don't give a dam.

That is the part about ID I dislike too, it makes a conclusion about
something, but so do atheist in my opinion when they say that no
direction was required for live to form and evolve. Both are
statements that suggest they have looked at all the possible pitfalls
and barriers and they know the all the answers to the questions.
For me that is more of a human complaint than an issue with ID,
because we are nor afforded the luxury of looking at some of these
questions and allowing a void to exist when it comes to the
answers. There was either no guiding hand required, or there
needed to be one, as soon as you step up and start arguing either
side of that you have crossed a line and now you find yourself
arguing your beliefs about the topic.
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's not a problem for ID any more than abiogenesis is a necessary part of the theory of evolution.

I would disagree with you here, if you cannot start a process you
cannot continue it.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
Pull your head in KJ.

My previous post merely showed that when the "father" of ID launched this movement, his speeches regulary included bible quotes and a clear link with religion, god and the church.

All I was saying was that ID is based from religion, it's just dressed up differently in an attempt to get creationism into a science class.

Was ...[text shortened]... ion = creationism, I reject ID because it claims to be a science without being scientific.

It does not matter what the "father" of ID said, any more than it would
matter what Darwin said if he accepted or rejected God, his views about
God do not come into play, either the questions are real and valid that
ID asks or they are not, if they are valid the "person" you want to rip
is just another guy with a point of view. Pull your head out and stick to
the topic and quick attempting to make a person the topic not the
subject.
Kelly