Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

We must parse things differently.

Yes. But I think we knew that already Smile

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Here's another bit of writing from James Tour. I'll let it speak for itself.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

That is one of the best articles on the evolution/creation debate I have read in my years. Thank you for sharing Ros. Such objectivity on the matter is rare and well received.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

confirmation bias creeps into many things when when all we are looking for is something to support what we exclusively believe in. I recall that you once said that DNA "confirms" ID "theory".

I'm well aware of confirmation bias and remember, it works in both directions.

I'm sure I said DNA supports ID theory but I've said many times that it is not DNA or the ID theory that has convinced me of an intelligent actor in the universe. So in that sense, DNA does 'confirm' my own 'ID' theory. But ID by itself certainly does not confirm the existence of God.

Quote:

when asked how you are certain about that, you made some mention of computers and bar codes, You should have also mentioned jacquard looms and spectra .

Yes, the comparisons between computer technology and cellular 'machinery' is inescapable. I do feel qualified to make that comparison and I am sure my experience with computers and how absolutely resistant to random chance resulting in progress they are. Progress there only happens with massive infusions of intelligent design. Comparing it to abiogenesis, the chances of a useful functioning program resulting from random codes is nil. Not to mention the likelihood of the hardware to run that code on also happening by chance.

The animations on You tube under the subject 'inner life of the cell' are a pretty good way to get acquainted with the amazing amount of 'design' within the cell if you don't have the time to wade through the biology text books.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FzcTgrxMzZk

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I think that youve just convinced yourself that your belief is so , even though youve not taken time to understand the simplicity of chemical bonding that could have resulted in life. Please dont assert that youve got an "open mind".

I think it was Jay Gould or even Richard Dawkins who was among the first to popularize the comparison between tetradecimals and DNA.
Its as unsupported as was Rev Paleys vest clock lying on the "heath", or the windstorm in a junkyard. They are both Cute attempts but with no substance at all. Its all the"Cartoon science" favored by Creationists/IDers.

PS, Ive probably "waded" through several hundreds of texts in bio, genetic, paleo, math, biochem, biostats, etc than you even realize exist on the subject.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Do you realize that most of your counter arguments amount to 'you're full of **** and don't know what you're talking about.'?

I added a link to the 'inner life of the cell' to my last post. Note that it is NOT a production of Discovery Institute. I think Harvard University produced it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

but you fail to notice certain repeating phrases like "continuous directional polymerization" or polypeptide linkage" . The effort to make short chemical atrings into longer "snot loops" , have obeyed laws of chemistry, not religion. Thats ok, one day youre gonna get around to microbiology or "biochemistry" for dummies. No slight intended. I actually keep them in my bookshleves and refer to specific sections quite regularly in our work.
You miss the entire parade by not even looking to see what the underlying science contains.
Fscinating stuff. Even Dr Behes "Darwin's Black Box" has numbers of basic chemical reaction data and biopolymerization. (His principle argument misses the point that his irreducible complexity (which underpins much ID"theory"), aint so irreducible.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

but you fail to notice certain repeating phrases like "continuous directional polymerization" or polypeptide linkage"

Once again your arguments are all about how ignorant I am.

I could assure you that I am familiar with those terms and I've read lots of books on hard biology science (including Behe's work) but of course my arguments are powerless in the face of your crushing retorts of - 'you don't know what you're talking about/ your head is clouded by religious myth/ you are hopelessly locked into your single mindset/ ad nauseum'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

actually YOU started it by chiding me to watch some cartoon (From which I quoted how you missed those cogent phrases therein) "Instead" of reading books.

I merely respond in kind.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Is insult the only tool in your box?

The recommendation I made was mainly to others not familiar with cellular biology (not a personal insult to you) and the 'cartoon' as you called it, was an animation produced by Harvard University showing the best science on cellular biology currently available.

You are big on 'past post baggage' so give me credit for previously crediting you with having some knowledge of it. Still, I think that animation of cellular workings might be of interest to you.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

If you concede that neither science nor religion provides a whole picture then your question is ill-phrased.

It could be either that it is good science or it is not science because science is impotent to pass ANY view on that topic. And that leads to the awareness that in all its premises and all its conclusions science leans upon outside reasoning.

0 Replies

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Is there any valid reason why facts such as these should not be presented to students along with the theory of evolution? In every other area of science, the counter arguments against any theory are presented, but not evolution.

Why is that?

Rhetorical question of course. The reason is because somebody would object that these are arguments used by the "ID people" and they are trying to sneak religion into schools! Oh my!

Is that a valid reason why we should not teach scientific facts?

4 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I thought you vociferously claimed that you had nothing to do with DI? and in fact you claimed ignornce of its mission to disrepute science in favor of Jesus .
When I askede you to read some more, I hope you gqve equal time to real biology and pqleontology.

These guys are mostly all discredited douche bags in the fields in whidh they assert knowledge.
You(and Discovery Institute) keep ignoring the nature of the chemical bond. We can see the fossil record of the Archean to be full of isoprene polymeric "Bgs of stuff" tht are abounding in C12 carbon.

Look, if you want to remain defiantly ignorant, that is your choice. BUT, DO NOT (at least on my watch in the stte of PA) try to clim that we "Shouldnt teach good science, please go stick your head in a bowl of primordial soup .

Basing an assertion on pure ignorant ranting (nd claiming some sort of scientific connection) is just total bullshit qnd I hope noone with hlf a brin or bettr will repudiate that silly stqnd .
Yes Im insulting you, but its an insult that is based upon a basic working knowledge. If you wish to hqve your kids lern about unicorns and gods in chrge, that is certainly your affair Just dont mess with methodological naturlim without foirst taking a course in biochemistry or moleculr biology.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Is there any valid reason why facts such as these should not be presented to students along with the theory of evolution

These assertions are discussed in several classes in molecular bio, paleogeochemistry, developmentl genetics and severl other advanced classes. The ANSWERS are also.

Students are usually asked to develop the ansqwers bsed upon a set of facts in evidence

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

these are arguments used by the "ID people" and they are trying to sneak religion into schools! Oh my!

Severl noteble court cases , including 2 Supreme Court decisions have concluded that these "arguments" you favor, are RELIGION based upon several known tests of evidence.

Science was EVIDENCE in these cases, the Discovery Institute (Dover vKitzmiller) lost big time when its own arguments in SUPPORT of ID as science were found to be laughably," breathlessly inane". A US Supreme Court Decision (Edwards v Aguillard) arrived ath the Conclusion thqt SCientific Creationism was also a religiously based worldview with NO scientific basis.

Im just a country rock-knoocker and I tke some of these qrgument mde by DI folks to be without any evidence tht is diiscoverble, testble, or repetble (pick any one)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot quote:
"The reason is because somebody would object that these are arguments used by the "ID people" and they are trying to sneak religion into schools! Oh my! "

Thank you for so quickly demonstrating the truth of my prediction.

I note that you did not offer a single argument, all you offer 'it's all BS'.

And just because I read articles by DI doesn't mean I have anything to do with them. I read the NY Times too, what does that prove?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I note you aren't bringing the NY Times here pretending it is actual science.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Thank you for so quickly demonstrating the truth of my prediction

Your "prediction" is over 50 years old, know that?
All you are doing is parroting Edwards v AGuillard and Dover v Kitzmiller

"Breathless inanity" was the word describing IDs arguments at Dover. I don't know why you keep it up without investigating real world science.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Is there any valid reason why facts such as these should not be presented to students along with the theory of evolution? In every other area of science, the counter arguments against any theory are presented, but not evolution.

Why is that?

Rhetorical question of course. The reason is because somebody would object that these are arguments used by the "ID people" and they are trying to sneak religion into schools! Oh my!

Is that a valid reason why we should not teach scientific facts?

What are the alternative scientific theories to evolution?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

What are the alternative scientific theories to evolution?

In science as popularly defined, none.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
What are the alternative scientific theories to evolution?

In science as popularly defined, none.

There aren't any counter arguments, then, seeing as how a counter argument would propose an alternative, scientific theory.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know