Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Setanta,

When people babble on about the Constitution it is what it stands for that they are babbling about. Just so, when people babble on about God it is what that God stands for that they are babbling about.

The stubborn refusal to expose oneself to arguments maintaining, not asserting, that what God stands for is indeed scientific can only be justified if the fear of such arguments is insupportable emotionally.

When people babble on about nothing in particular it is quite another matter.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

subtlety of my argument

A Haaa Ha Ha Ha. I have a Massey Ferguson 360 that's as subtle as you.
You desire attention nd your route takes us through miles of reworked sediment. Your pony knows about 2 tricks and its al repeat, repeat, hold the reign I wanna do it yet again.

Quote:

Unless the ID movement, a business operation as I explained in the simplest terms,

which it is not, and many have explained in terms that even you could grasp. Apparently you suffer more from short term memory losses.

Quote:

Is intelligent design theory a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary theory or is it only a religious view?

Is there a consensus in the scientific community one way or the other on this issue?

Exactly, that's what wandel said. Im sure you can, if you study it long enough,youll get it. As far as "Wedge strategy" That's the very terms used by the IDers to "Make believe" that their "Scientific postulate" will grow and take over as a "renewal mechanism" of faith and culture. You've been most helpful at demonstrating the conclusions of the court (And this thread)

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Once more for the million times ID is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a science classroom.

It makes no difference to me Bill if you make that declaration a trillion times. So if it is for my benefit you might as well save yourself the trouble.

Why a science classroom. Why not the school? Why not the educational system?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You wrote, and I repeat:

Quote:

Quote:
Anyone who asserts there is no possibility of intelligent design must first assert that there is no possibility of a GOD existing.

You don't even know when you demand an answer to your foolish and unanswerable query.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That's a confection of assertions all based on false premises. Which I could easily demonstrate if I had the time.

Nobody will ever convince me that the DI is not a business operation and that Dover was not a put up job to milk various money teats.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Not sure of why you consider my statement to be nonsensical, Farmerman, but I suspect it is because you cannot refute it.

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Once more for the million times ID is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a science classroom.

I have NEVER said it was a scientific theory...and I have NEVER said it belongs in a science classroom.

I have said that IF the possibility of a GOD exists...the possibility of intelligent design exists.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote, and I repeat:

Quote:
Quote:
Anyone who asserts there is no possibility of intelligent design must first assert that there is no possibility of a GOD existing.

You don't even know when you demand an answer to your foolish and unanswerable query.

There is no question there, ci. It simply is a statement of fact.

IF the possibility of a GOD exists...then the possibility of intelligent design exists.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Not sure of why you consider my statement to be nonsensical, Farmerman, but I suspect it is because you cannot refute it.

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Once more for the million times ID is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a science classroom.

I have NEVER said it was a scientific theory...and I have NEVER said it belongs in a science classroom.

I have said that IF the possibility of a GOD exists...the possibility of intelligent design exists.

IF, FRank. Only if. Got anything else.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your "if's" are meanless; it's argumentum ad nauseum!

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Not sure of why you consider my statement to be nonsensical, Farmerman, but I suspect it is because you cannot refute it.

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Once more for the million times ID is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a science classroom.

I have NEVER said it was a scientific theory...and I have NEVER said it belongs in a science classroom.

I have said that IF the possibility of a GOD exists...the possibility of intelligent design exists.

Don't need anything else, Edgar.

Unless a person is willing to assert there is no possibility of a GOD...that person cannot assert there is no possibility of intelligent design.

You like to assert that there are no gods...apparently asserting that there is no possibility that there are gods.

Cooler heads realize that is just a guess...a wild, blind guess...and do not presume to make such a wild guess.
IF, FRank. Only if. Got anything else.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your "if's" are meanless; it's argumentum ad nauseum!

Yeah...according to you just about everything I say is "meaningless."

I interpret that to mean you have no valid argument against what I am saying.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I made my assertions to you long ago. It's humbug.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I made my assertions to you long ago. It's humbug.

Your assertions are humbug???

Probably that is not what you mean.

Yes, Edgar...you have asserted (as I remember it) "There are NO gods."

I get ya loud and clear...and I thank you for sharing that opinion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Not sure of why you consider my statement to be nonsensical, Farmerman, but I suspect it is because you cannot refute it.

You've got it backwards, I cannot refute it because its nonsensical.As I said , its untestable and , unfalsifiable. Those are important concepts when one attempts to argue like a grownup.

4 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You wrote,

Quote:

Yeah...according to you just about everything I say is "meaningless."

You can't even keep my challenges straight. "Everything?" You're off the deep end.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Frank wants others to refute what's impossible. Nice position to be in, when he demands others to explain something he himself starts with "if."

2 Replies

@farmerman,

In case Ive been pitchin and you aren't catching. Here is a working definition and some examples of falsifiability as a concept in scientific arguments

Quote:

FALSIFIABILITY OR REFUTABILITY is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

The claim "No human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. On the other hand, "All humans live forever" is falsifiable since the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong (excluding metaphysical assertions about souls, which are not falsifiable). Moreover, a claim may be true and still be falsifiable; if "All humans live forever" were true, we would never actually find a dead human, and yet that claim would still be falsifiable because we can at least imagine the observation that would prove it wrong.

Some statements are only falsifiable in theory, while others are even falsifiable in practice (i.e. testable). For example, "it will be raining here in one billion years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.

Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such ideas. In contrast to positivism, which held that statements are senseless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper claimed that falsifiability is merely a special case of the more general notion of criticizability. Still, he admitted that tests and refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Those are important concepts when one attempts to argue like a grownup.

So also is avoiding assertions such as "self congratulatory BS". And the thousands others you have made.

Such things are low class, common, ill bred, vulgar, shoddy, gross, ungentlemanly, effeminate, Philistine, coarse, ill mannered, plebian , impulsive, loutish, ignorant, babyish and worst of all completely ******* meaningless except as signalling the presence of the characteristics mentioned and the habitual recourse to them when a bit rattled.

The thought of being ruled by half-baked theorists in such a frame of mind is nightmarish.

1 Reply

@spendius,

why don't you get to the point and tell me what you really feel .

1 Reply

Frank's delusion is that these two concepts are linked. One could prove beyond a doubt that a deity exists, and it would have no bearing on, it would say nothing about whether or not any life form had ever been "intelligently designed." The concepts are not axiomatically linked. As i pointed out earlier, there are reputable scientists who believe that god exists, but who believe that life arose on this planet and achieved the complexity it displays as a result of the interaction of matter and energy. No special creations, no "intelligent design" needed.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know