Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

What part of "it just happened in a pond one day Daddy" do you not understand is magic........

Sheesh

still trying to run with scizzors? You made up the whole line, now you seem to be hoping to gain some credibility eh?

I think you blew any hope at credibility many many pages ago.

We are judged herein by what we sound like, not where we were educated. Im sure your institute of learning wouldn want any publicity about its past (or present) association with you.

farmergirl does it again! One Ad hominem after another!

Good, girly, very good.


unbelievable this one1

Don't do what Quahog does, do what he says!.

He doesn't realize his own ad homs - like he's ignorant about 100% of the time. Good for a laugh.

I doubt it - science is a process, religion is a brainwashed belief - apples and oranges.

Well, if ID could come up with anything like this: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30415007
I'd consider it to be something other than pseudoscience.

That was a very interesting article, from which one can do one's own online research. It is a far cry from the confident and implausible pronouncements of the denialist trolls around here.

The only thing I've ever seen creation "science" produce is word salads designed to muddy the water, not clear anything up. ID doesn't even deserve to have the word "theory" follow it. It's got no robust explanation for their god of the gaps.

Not denial, competing facts based on extensive research, not knee jerk pseudo revelations certain people in this forum expect us to believe.

Not competing facts. Competing interpretations of the facts. The legit scientists do the work; the ID people misinterpret and distort it with whatever logical fallacy required it in order to try to justify the magical hypothesis.

One of the main differences between science and ID is that science starts with a question and accepts whatever answer the evidence supports. ID starts with a preferred answer and tries to cobble together fragments of the entire body of knowledge (leaving out what they don't like) in order to justify the belief.

Thts mjor "BINGO" . The real Creationist "scientists" aren't here because the neological bullshit vocabulary they create (like POLYSTRATE FOSSILS, Or BARYMINOLOGICAL ANALYSES) are perfectly designed to provide the mud. Someone sent me a "lexicon of creationist terms". Ill hunt that down , It was on an office computer

"Baraminology." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology

The fact is that nobody here KNOWS if there is intelligent design or not...although I doubt that will stop the atheists from pretending they do...or for ridiculing the theists for doing the mirror image of what they regularly do.

My, my . . . you must be completely clueless. What "facts" do you allege the creationist have at their command?

My worldview is simply a conclusion based one based on the weight of evidence. No real science ever states something unequivocally because new findings always dump the cart. However, in such things as this (Similar to the moon and green cheese), some rather strong conclusions are what we have.
If youd read the various output of the ID "Scientific" literature v the literature of standard biology, youd quickly see (on any particulr subject) that ID "science" has never produced any unique focused research results or any non-debunked analyses (like Irreducible complexity ). So, a conclusion that one ultimately arrives at is that ID seems to be merely a "wish list" and not a scientifically compelling evidence based story.
In mymind, the strength o evidence wins the day. ID evidence has been continuously debunked or shot down in the field, Id say that the possibility of an " ID world" is quite remote, based on what we now know. (whether its a deity derived or or the other style of ID that the Discovery Institute tries to make us believe they represent). The only reason I cannot say UNEQUIVOCALLY that Im convinced that ID is impossible is if we, as we tour the galaxy, find out , in successive findings, that ALL of what we find is based upon
1organic chemistry
2Ribonucleic acid based.
those two above findings would give me pause to develop another hypothesis or hypotheses, that is not an abiogenesis- earth-based

Your arguments to the contrary seem to be based on "just not quite enough interest" to delve deeper into the lit,but rather "

Ive gotta say something deep-sounding on this subject anyway"

That's all Im saying. The fact that you rewind every couple weeks to restate this piece of ( deleted), is at least amusing.
You kinda remind me of the John Goodman character in "Lebowski" where hes lost in Viet Nam and everything he says is a restatement of the battle of Whey ]

The truth is everywhere, you just will only Google, what it is that you wish to find, as it is your life that is spent in blinders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgsEtVe_Bis

That remains to be seen of course!

I really think your assumption is extremely naieve.
Do you now really think, that there is in 'science' no vested interest, no hidden agendas, no financial issues, no confirmation bias (it is FUlL of it!), no plagiarism, no parrotting, and so on and so forth?
If you insist it is not, than 'science' is not human at all!
But if you keep believing 'science' is searching fro truth and honest, bla bla bla,
I have you a cheap bridge to sell for $ 1000, on the moon! payable in cash!!!!

But science allows, nay, encourages, independent verification. Don't see much of that in religion or intelligent design flummery.

Science is definitely human, as is religion, it's just the former has built in quality control measures. The latter fights against them tooth and nail.

my kids often have presented some youtube stuff and theyd discuss it after class. I don't hve much time left in my life to hear the same stories go on and on. Ive got all of Mike Behes books and have read em . In each case, his arguments have been taken apart by those in closely related fields of biochem that occupies most of Behes waking hours . (Remember, hes not only a tenured faculty at Lehigh, hes a sustaining scholar at the Discovery Institute.
Did he come out of the ID closet after he was tenured, because LEhigh includes a broadside in its bio department page about BEhe saying that,
I paraphrase
"While Dr Behe is certainly free to epress his opinions (re his worldview). Lehigh University nd the dept of Biology state emphatically that e don't share his views"

(If they did, they could be in danger of having theoir regional accreditation put under review)

Behe has not done his scientific reputation ny good when he testified on bhalf od the Defense in the Dover case. He testified that science will include Astrology as a real discipline.

The problem with ID proponents is that there are (t least) 2 schools, the deity cetered intelligences and the "Non-deity" centered. They seem to discount the panspermiasts back at the home office but most of the Non-deity centered IDers(at least to me) appear to lean heavily on panspermia and alien intervention.

Ya know e don't hve any argument about that , all we can do is wait for any new evidence and then readjust the rudders. While nat selection wont go away , evidence againct abiogenesis, will be stronger or even the rules that govrn it ould need to change

Sir Francis Crick was a pnsprmiast, as was Lynn Margulis and D Clark, (the scientists among em have done some remarkeable work in assessing data which is only being revealed at great cost within national space programs).

Several of the IDers try to muscle in that the entir earth and its geology was didled with piodically to then insert new strains of life.(This becomes the argument that surrounds the "Intelligent Muddler").

Im willing to wait ince, either way, theres really no argument to science. Natural selection still seems to go its way in its own time schedule and is mostly adaptive to events occurring on,(and to) the plnet.