97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 01:26 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Thanks for doing the legwork on this. After decades of addressing the Discovery Institute's bullshit arguments and red herrings, I just don't have the patience or time for it any more.
Legwork, as in telling anyone who questions evolution as the answer to life's existence that they are full of crap without offering an argument for why it's 'crap'? Yeah, nice work ros...
rosborne979
 
  2  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 02:04 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Thanks for doing the legwork on this. After decades of addressing the Discovery Institute's bullshit arguments and red herrings, I just don't have the patience or time for it any more.
Legwork, as in telling anyone who questions evolution as the answer to life's existence that they are full of crap without offering an argument for why it's 'crap'? Yeah, nice work ros...

Nice strawman. So far off target I don't even know what you're shooting at.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 02:18 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Nice strawman. So far off target I don't even know what you're shooting at.


But what is your belief then?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 02:18 pm
@rosborne979,
I rest my case...
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 03:12 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

I rest my case...

Me too.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 06:23 pm
@rosborne979,
I certainly don't intend to do a search for this, but while he was still among the living, Kevin, also known as TimberlandKO, posted an extremely detailed rebuttal of this horseshit (which came out before this site was founded)..He went to the trouble of tracking down all the people listed on the 2001 statement. Many (i think he said eight or ten percent) could not be identified at all. It was hilarious, though, as he found engineers who were sanitary engineers (janitorial supervisors) and dieticians. He also posted a poll done by the AAAS showing that more than 97% of scientists working in relevant fields supported evolution, driven by natural selection, as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. The remaining less than 3# simply did not feel certain that evolution was always driven by natural selection.
Setanta
 
  2  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 06:24 pm
Leadfoot's responses here are getting so whacky that they're worth a response.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 08:26 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
He also posted a poll done by the AAAS showing that more than 97% of scientists working in relevant fields supported evolution, driven by natural selection, as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
I would not be surprised if that were the case. It is worth considering that scientists' work depends largely on grants. Make any positive statement about ID or doubts about evolution and watch your funding dry up.

One other point. People seem to think that biological research is fundamentally tied to Darwinian evolution. That is simply wrong. It does not make one iota of difference to the work a scientist does in the field of biology whether evolution is driven by natural selection or intelligent design.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 09:22 pm
@Leadfoot,
"......whether evolution is driven by natural selection or intelligent design."
There is no "or."
farmerman
 
  2  
Tue 8 Dec, 2015 10:58 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
It does not make one iota of difference to the work a scientist does in the field of biology whether evolution is driven by natural selection or intelligent design



How would one propose any research that was based upon a presumption of ID??
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 12:58 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
How would one propose any research that was based upon a presumption of ID??



evolution of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



How I love his stupidty!!! LOL
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 12:59 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
"......whether evolution is driven by natural selection or intelligent design."
There is no "or."


because...............?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:10 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
"It does not make one iota of difference to the work a scientist does in the field of biology whether evolution is driven by natural selection or intelligent design"



How would one propose any research that was based upon a presumption of ID??
That was not my point but of course you could do that. In a way, we already do. Science makes the assumption that there is a logic and order to virtually everything when looking for answers. 'God does not play dice with the universe' and all that.

The much reviled Discovery Institute does that as well. Even in 'your' science, many studies are done, not by doing new experiments but by looking for patterns in massive amounts of data from previous research. That is more or less what D.I. is doing.

Or for a more direct example, Let's say it's a hundred years ago and we still thought the universe had no beginning. Hubble could have asked for a grant to see if it DID have a beginning based on the idea of ID. He would not likely have found funding for that but it obviously would have succeded. Of course Hawking would come back and say it was created, but from nothing. But still...

My original point was that ID or natural selection makes zero difference in almost all bio research. I don't know how you would be able to tell the difference in the rest.

To refute the idea that ID is not testable, let me propose one testing whether evolution's spontaneous emergence of life is possible. NASA's scientists recently confidently claimed that we will find signs of extraterrestial life (not just 'organic molecules') in the next decade. ID would suggest that this is not likely. Not a 100% definitive test, but few experiments are.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:20 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
"......whether evolution is driven by natural selection or intelligent design."


There is no "or."
So says the religion of science :-)
Setanta
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:37 am
@Leadfoot,
Utter drivel, and it is obviously motivated by the polemic of obsessive theism. That theism is so obsessive that you insist that your imaginary friend is the answer to all situations in which any doubt arises. As for that hilarious bullshit about "intelligent design," FM's question was pertinent. I see you have nothing coherent to offer on that topic. Claiming that a choice between natural selection and "intelligent design" makes no difference in biological research is about as dull-witted a claim as you could have made.

http://www.newciv.org/pic/nl/artpic/10/1953/SidneyHarris_MiracleWeb.jpg

When you invoke supernatural causes, you're no longer doing science. Who or what is your "intelligent designer?" How intelligent can they be in light of the amount extinctions which have occurred simply because conditions changed but the plant or animal was no longer sufficiently adapted to conditions? Not the least of reasons to laugh at the concept of "intelligent design" is the myriad ****-ups on the part of your alleged designer.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  3  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:38 am
@Leadfoot,
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ueOkMgQf-IA%2FUZvtlJX-dSI%2FAAAAAAAAARo%2FCnT_tlazUlY%2Fs1600%2FScience-vs-Religion-Question-Everything.jpg&f=1
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:41 am
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.themetapicture.com%2Fmedia%2Ffunny-philosophy-versus-religion-questions.jpg&f=1
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:51 am
Well,


SCIENCE equals RELIGION

so, with that being said....
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:14 am
Of course, the one thing the atheists here refuse to deal with is...

...how does one conclude definitively that "evolution" in not the method of the intelligent design?

The atheists here are more interested in laughing at the notion of the existence of a "creator"...and mocking theists...than they are at actually thinking logically and being open-minded. All they are actually doing is asserting that there are no gods...and presenting that blind guess in their usual sneaking, cowardly way.

Anyway, if there is the possibility of a CREATOR...there is the possibility of intelligent design...and there is at least the possibility of a CREATOR.

BOTTOM LINE:

TO THE ATHEISTS: There is not anywhere near enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess about whether or not intelligent design has been in play. Your insistence that no "intelligent design" exists is nonsense.

TO THE THEISTS: If there is "intelligent design"...there is more than enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess that humankind as it exists did not come at the hands of a creator fashioning us out of clay. Evolution, of some sort, has occurred...and it is time you all came to grips with it.






0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2015 11:57 am
@Leadfoot,
FYI, science is not a religion. It's based on observable evidence.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 04:32:13