Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

well, the evolution crowd (of which Im a card carrying member) has been mostly a "natural selection " driven agroup of scientists. Tody the job is making the non-scientific public unserstand the bases of
GENE FLOW
GENETIC DRIFT
MOLECULAR ADAPTATION
and several others that are all part of a modern evolutionary synthesis.(Of which the IDers feel they have an"Argument card" to play since they dont understand that science doesnt just sit on its ass and try to push 35 year old hypotheses when new data requires that we think out our todaypositions)
Somethin you IDers never ever consider about what you "believe" yet cannot evidence.

Biologists need to consider more deeply the lessons of geology,physics, paleontology, organic chem , and physical hem) and this must be done copmprehensively, not singularly like IIDers seem to prefer

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

well, the evolution crowd (of which Im a card carrying member) has been mostly a "natural selection " driven agroup of scientists. Tody the job is making the non-scientific public unserstand the bases of
GENE FLOW
GENETIC DRIFT
MOLECULAR ADAPTATION
and several others that are all part of a modern evolutionary synthesis.(Of which the IDers feel they have an"Argument card" to play since they dont understand that science doesnt just sit on its ass and try to push 35 year old hypotheses when new data requires that we think out our todaypositions)
Somethin you IDers never ever consider about what you "believe" yet cannot evidence.

Biologists need to consider more deeply the lessons of geology,physics, paleontology, organic chem , and physical hem) and this must be done copmprehensively, not singularly like IIDers seem to prefer

Outstanding post, FM.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

FM is an idiot. The ID argument is not about whether evolution is true/real or not, its about whether mutation and natural selection is an adequate explanation for it or not.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Oh, like I never said over and over again about nat selection, gene flow, genetic drift, convergent evolution ,spandrels, etc etc. You dont ever seem to listen to anyone who has degrees in the area you wish to impress how smRT you may be.
Others may be impressed, I am not. course Ive onlybeen working in the area for almost 45 years, and dealing with te "illusions of knowledge" you guy profess Id say that most people are at least willing to consider real evidence.
When you get some real evidence let me know.

Still dont wanna talk about The return of the God Hypothesis eh?? After all youre the one who brought it all up and still denying that you dont follow the writings of folks at Discovery Institute. You further have tried to make me your fall guy because youve said that I was incorrectly asserting your religious bases. You do know that Mwyrs is just another shill at Discovery dont you??

0 Replies

Quote:

To leadfoot

looks like the mods have pulled your isulting statement about me, as well as my response to you. calling me an idiot , even though i may be one, is my prerogative alone.
You therefore , must stick to facts and evidence, no more assertions, insults or fact-free shout outs. That may help force the tenor of your contributions to a bit higher level, even though they come from the polished halls of Discovery Institute

0 Replies

Those posts are still there in all their glory, farmerman.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Why do scientists have to force people to believe things? If there were evidence for evolution, it wouldn't require finding the "missing link" which inevitably turns out to be another Piltdown man.

1 Reply

Why do religious fanatics with no understanding of science, try to impose their disgusting moronic beliefs on the rest of us?

0 Replies

@hester831,

Quote:

Why do scientists have to force people to believe things?

I really am not certain but I believe scientists think that most people are educable. You apparently think otherwise eh?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You had ears to hear, but you do not hear.

1 Reply

@hester831,

Correction, I hear perfectly well. I just dont buy fact-free evidence-free assertions that are deroven from a series of book that have all the scientific credibility of an Alley OOp strip,

. When you can come up with some repeatable, provable , experimentally presentable, falsifiable evidence, then we can actually debate point by point. till then, I aint buyin any of your religious assertions .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Interesting you say, "I don't buy," instead of, "I don't believe." Faith and reason are in perfect harmony. There is abundant evidence but you reject it.

3 Replies

@hester831,

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/8e/a5/58/8ea5586c5b4a0497f4bd84d52c85058a.jpg

1 Reply

@hester831,

google TIKTAALIK if you want some testable evidence.

0 Replies

@hester831,

Id be so happy if you really could present your "evidence" I challenge you because Ive seen none other than dubious tales from the tent, and they really dont fulfill the "RULES OF EVIDENCE"

0 Replies

Intelligence Design 'theory' is not science, nor are its proponents really aiming for it replacing another theory.

What this is is an assault on the scientific method as a whole.

No amount of evidence will be enough in the eyes of those who value testimony over facts, decree over deduction. THis is also the reason why most arguments from the ID-side appear/are based on logical fallacies (which are identified by the scientific method, so as to prevent un-scientific results).

Since science is itself evolutionary and not divine or ever complete, there are those who believe it is enough proof to point at 'incompletion' of science as satisfactory refutation.

The frightening part is that those who control flow of information, hold power, regardless of truth. So when threats are made that 'evolution is already dead', it is not based on scientific fact, it is based on information control.

What is the opposite of Renaissance?

2 Replies

@Doma44,

Doma44 wrote:

What is the opposite of Renaissance?

Could it be daffodils?

0 Replies

@Doma44,

Evolution is the definition of information control. Could you give an example of a couple of these fallacies.

0 Replies

Its definitely science. Why dont we ever find evidence of evolution.

2 Replies

@VABGirl,

There's plenty of evidence for evolution and it really makes more sense than any alternative explanation for the complex web of life on the planet.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know