Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Really?

A bit naive are we?

yes, SCIENCE equals RELIGION

it has NOTHINg to do with really finding things out.

btw where ever did you get the idea that it is based on observable evidence?

and, now we are at it

EVOLUTION IS SO SLOWwwwwwwwwwwwwww, IT IS UNOBSERVABLE!

Now what?

I was wondering why I put you on IGNORE; you've proved my point once again.

Cicerone, you are an imposter...

Good!
Of course you can't explain why.

Redundant.

Why should the possibility of ID preclude the existence of extraterrestrial life? Are you conflating your personal theistic view with the generic term ID?

EVOLUTION also , is silent on the origin of life. Thats a whole nother discipline, mostly governed by laws and theories of ionization,, surface chemistry, nd energy trnsfer and phase rule..

ID is untestable and non-falsifible. EVolutionary theory is NOT.

If there is the possibility of a Creator...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

There is no getting around that.





What is more important...is that intelligent design is POSSIBLE.

One may be able to test "evolutionary theory" and it may be falsifiable...but what CANNOT BE DONE...is to establish whether evolution is or is not the intelligent design of a creator.

There's no getting around the fact that there's no evidence of a 'creator.'

Just cowards! And you are not completely right here!
In old textbooks we will see talk about the origin of life, Complete with the Urey-Miller-experiment.

But of course, because it was so wrong and flawed and stupid, NOW, religious evolutionists don't talk about origins anymore.
But if the experiment would have confirmed some thing, ohhhhhh, I am sure the extremely stupid gang of religious-fundamental-evolutionists (most are fossils themselves btw !!) wouldn't have abandoned it at all!

So, because evolution is also extremely flawed, bullocks, and obsolete,
one day they will be silent on the religion of evolution it self.

I have a sense that that day isn't far away!

Really? I don't know about this, but isn't it build in the religious science system, that there is no creator from the start? Me think so!

If so this is curcular reasoning, of which extremely stupid evolutionists are very very very good at! Just reasd there postings!

If the religion of evolution would make species better. why then are the evolutionst getiing dumber and dumber?


and don't forget indoctrination called 'education' is here to dumb people at public schools down! Provable so!!!

Hence the longer at school, the dumber one gets. well, religious-fundamentalist-evolutionsts have been very long at school, hence....



See, it is all very easy to explain.

I agree here!!!



lol

It doesn't. But it does preclude the assumption that scientists are working with - That if you have water and rocky planets in the 'goldylocks zone', life springing up is inevitable.

BTW, Kudos to farmer for pointing out the difference between that and evolution.

No. I try to compartmentalize my theist beliefs away from this discussion because people don't like to be preached at. I'm not always successful. If I had conflated them, I might have said the test was definitive.

That might be a stretch though. NASA's statement about finding E.T. life in the next decade was as likely about preserving public support for funding as it was about their 'scientific' guesses. In that case the failure to find life would only prove that scientists are willing to tell bald face lies to fund their hobbies.

Compartmentalization is a major reason why some people who are otherwise good at math, statistics, logic, reasoning and the like nevertheless spend all their spare money on casinos or lottery tickets. I have a good friend who's like that. Talk to him about physics and he'll run you over. Ask him why he buys lottery tickets and he gives you the same gambler's fallacy that everyone else is subject to.

There is no getting around the fact that there doesn't have to be evidence of a creator (or anything else) in order for that thing to exist. And it can reasonably be asserted that "there is no evidence of a creator that we know of at this time"...is not the same thing as "there is no evidence of a creator." There may be such evidence, but we humans may just not be intelligent or perceptive enough to recognize it...just as there once was no evidence of a minor planet Pluto that we knew of at one time.

Hope you are feeling better, ci. Your posts are so short, it seems you are posting from something other than a computer keyboard. Gotta be a pain.

Same with evolution, mate, exactly the same

True that. Compartmentalization done inside your own head leads to all kinds of mischief. Comparmentalizing discussions is a different matter. This wouldn't be the place for me to talk about cars or grandchildren.

"modern" ID beliefs were first hosted by Phillip Johnston in his "Darwin On Trial" > His book tours were a hoot because he was continually backing up to include the "panspermia" idea for the origins of life on this planet (not to include evolution).
The present day IDers of the Discovery Institute crowd, would have us believe that they are fully behind panspermia as a scientific concept and not one of religion. Yet, when pushed hard, they default everything back to a deity .
In the concept of panspermia ,first given hypothesis status by Arhennius and popularized by Francis Crick , , after a few more centuries in outer space exploration we finally may come across some form of life and something definitive to hang our hats on this concept. Today, qe have no way of fuzting with it except for blog writers who make believe that ID is science.
The similarities of earth life with extra terrestrial life (based upon C12 nd a series of biopolymers and even some nucleotides) will after we actually find some ET life, allow us to develop scientific work plans for continued research about the origins and dispersal of first life through the galaxy.

Of course then, we are still left with an unfalsifible hypothesis about where an how the very first life in the galaxy arose.

Im afraid that science is ill equipped to even play in those fields YET.
As Darwin said about "some warm little pond",we now can assert that Darwin may have been a bit off because he didnt know about "black smokers" or clay chemistry

I haven't read 'Darwin On Trial' but I'm surprised to hear you say the author and the Discovery Institute both embrace panspermia. I never got a whiff of that in several years of reading D.I.'s stuff. Panspermia is the silliest kind of can kicking I can think of. Edit: That goes for either believers in ID or abiogenesis.

Good science, Frank; in your world you don't need evidence, just imagination that can never be proven.