Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

mad mike and his fatal rocket

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Is that so?

Then what about all these people telling us to "follow the science" for climate change, or COVID, or whatever other hoax is popular thought?

Did these people follow the scientific method? No! They were in charge, and they told other people what science is.

Science is only as good or as bad as the people making it.

But the word science comes from the origin "to know". It is what is known about the world. You can definitely have false science, just as you can hoax people into believing in a round Earth, when it is clearly flat, and you can fall off it. It is something internal to humans. There isn't a faith system that doesn't also have science.

Yes, the scientific method makes science work better.

But Archimedes predated scientific method we know of today. They had their own methods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
But science worked nonetheless.

1 Reply

@hightor,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Science is the study of the natural world.
Religion concerns the supernatural world.

Bullshit, secondhand, neurotic religions concoct a supernatural world. Religion is not about a supernatural, it is about the here and now and the union of the mind and the natural world.

The supernatural is simply a mistake of interpretation in secondhand religions and indoctrinated individuals.

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

But the question is about the theory of Intelligent Design.

ID theory (as proposed by Discovery Institute)has nothing to do with the supernatural or religion.

You are making the ASSUMPTION that it is equivalent to religion rather than arguing the question. What makes you think ID theory = 'religion'?

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

...Science is only as good or as bad as the people making it....

If it isn't based on the scientific method, it isn't science.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

ID theory (as proposed by Discovery Institute)has nothing to do with the supernatural or religion

The "Institute" still has you believing that tripe eh? Why did Dr Meyer spend so much time in proposing the very argument of creation in hi book of the "God Hypothesis" (from a point of complete belief)??
After All hes one of the "Scientific mullahs " of the Discovery Institute. So doesnt it imply at least where hes coming from as one of their board members?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Farmer asked:

Quote:

Why did Dr Meyer spend so much time in proposing the very argument of creation in hi book of the "God Hypothesis" (from a point of complete belief)??

No one who had read the book would ask that question.

The book approaches 'the God hypothesis' from the standpoint of mainstream molecular biology science. Although Meyer believes there is a Creator, he never asks the reader to take anything on ‘religious faith' or his authority as a scientist. This is just the opposite approach from farmer's claim.

Read the book before you judge it.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

ok, then answer it, i challenge you. I told you before that I read thi book waay bfore it even occured to you. I reminded you of it several months before you thought you "thought it up"

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

your argument is specious. id love to see some evidence to make the arguments that meyer pumps out.
like his "fine tuning argument"(p263)

PS, hes not a biochemist hes a historian of science

1 Reply

@farmerman,

BTW, I hope that Discovery Institute stops trying to claim that its "theory" is unerpinned by anything but hop and dreams. At least Meyrs is not as naive to us that term, and has, insted, inclued the term "HYPOTHESIS "in his book title.
Have you read Casey Luskin:s book "Discovering Intelligent Design" ast lest he and his co-
authors tried to shoehorn ral science into their work.

Asis usual, the DI is more adept at presenting mere credentials rather than research that thir corrspondents are actually responsible for (besides thir clearly religious undertoned works proclaiming that "we are too scientists doing scientific research".

BTW, unless theyve abandoned it, the DI has developed their "WEDGE STRATEGY" back in 2003. To me, that aounds like a bunch of religious proslytizing

1 Reply

@farmerman,

This is why when leadfoot says his posts are based on science I never have believed him.

0 Replies

Farmer said:

Quote:

your argument is specious. id love to see some evidence to make the arguments that meyer pumps out.
like his "fine tuning argument"(p263)

Here’s a snippet from that chapter in the book.

Quote:

“The Oxford physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who collaborated with Stephen Hawking in proving cosmological singularity theorems and later calculated the exquisite and hyper-exponential fine tuning of the initial entropy of the universe. Penrose determined that getting a universe such as ours with highly ordered configurations of matter required an exquisite degree of initial fine tuning—an incredibly improbable low-entropy set of initial conditions.”

— Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe by Stephen C. Meyer
https://a.co/ghTw3qt

There was no religious mumbo- jumbo there. I’ll let farmer argue that point with sir Roger Penrose.

I have to say that I am shocked by farmer's ignorance of the scientific underpinnings of the fine tuning argument. The general outlines of the argument are known by anyone with an interest in origins of life. But maybe he really has none.

1 Reply

Edgar said:

Quote:

This is why when leadfoot says his posts are based on science I never have believed him.

OTOH, I’m not shocked at edgar's ignorance of the subject.

But at least he admits his.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

AHHHH the "Goldilocks Argument". No evidence, based on "authority that admitted its a
"Working hypothesis".
I gave you the page an , like everything else that you meander, you ignore it and will dismiss it based on your own lack of knowledge. Are you certain that Hwking and Penrose "proved anything"? You oughta stay in your lane rather than quote 50dollar words with which you have little or no experience.
Still gonna keep insisting that DISCOVERY INSTITUTE has nothing to do with vangelical Fundamenatlism?? h.
Rmember, the whole shootin match of thirs is based on some BS from "Darwin on Trial" an that several of the founder members (Demski, Meyer, Denton tc) still abide with the wedge document,
I sem to recall that several of them , including Casey Luskin ha produced"The Wedge Document, SO WHAT?". In which they profess their pride in their Deity centered causes.

some more stuff you casually ignore.

Did you read the segments in Myers book that were basically repeats of what I was asking you to learn a bit more of.

when I wa telling you about several inorganic mineral compounds that form helices and doubl helices anddo it whenever they meet (boulangerite and Triclinic Iron Oxyhydroxides) you ignored it and obviously only caught up when Myer talked about the quatradecimal compounds of purines and pyrimidines.

Whenever it fliws ovr yr had you ither dismiss or call it irrlevent. If you have a vry tiny understanding of what I was telling you, why mak believe you vn understand.
IM REALLY NOT AGAINST YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM, just please dont make believe you opening up a new woorld of science that also includes the paranormal and supernatural. (Thats what Dr Bhe was all about ans HE IS A BOARD member of the Discovry Institute. )
When you say that DI promotes ID based on "science" youve been watching too much "Cornerstone" TV Network ,here everything that isnt a God directed science is blasphemy.

0 Replies

leadfoot, someting meyers said about "fine tooning as proof"

1 If GODacted to design the universe, we would expect evidence of fine tuning from its beginning.

2"we have evidence of fine tuning from the beginning of the Universe(Really???)

3 CONCLUSION --We have reason to believe that an INTELLIGENT agent that transcends th universe-also known as GOD--acted to design the universe ina way that maks it conducive to life. p263-4)

I would call that "half assed crap science".

real science itself has never called the several means by which life appeared on the planet as theory. even if a working model of 'Creation" were developed , trid, tsted and found to work, It ould still ot prove a thing to cience sine we have no idea what would the real moel be. There would alwys be another mans to compare. Panspermia, for xampl , could occur an maybe "Warm little Puddle-ism"also occur,
You shoul actually get your heros at The DI to go forward an actually do some real reserch of thir own rather than just posting Meyer's , Demski;s, Behe's or Luskin;s mental flatulence

Then Meyer goes and, leaning on authority, states that his quoted experts, including R Dawkins stated that ID ould explain the appearance of life. That in itself is a true statement but its without any scholarship other than writing an English sentence. Science demands some evidence before making those types of coclusionary statements

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Not gonna ignore you, I just have to get some sleep, im flying to look for garnet types and you can wait to call me all kinds a names, be back fri

0 Replies

Ain’t even gonna try

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Edgar said:

Quote:
This is why when leadfoot says his posts are based on science I never have believed him.

OTOH, I’m not shocked at edgar's ignorance of the subject.

But at least he admits his.

Meaning Edgar has not been informed by the spirit that Intelligent Design is science. Smile

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

meh

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Because cognitive dissonance.

Those People don't actually think, they react to words that trigger them.

If we research the origin of the word "trigger", however, we find that it has a good bit to do with brainwashing technique.
https://cognitiveresurgence.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/mind-control-101-myths-of-brainwashing/

Quote:

There is absolutely no way to know that you’ve been brainwashed.

That’s exactly the point. If you knew you were being controlled, you wouldn’t like it very much, and you wouldn’t stand for it. The manipulated fully believe they are making their own choices, that they are completely free to act in any way they choose.

A good deal of brainwashing involves setting up trigger thoughts, little tricks and traps that help you deflect any incoming facts, beliefs, thoughts, or feelings that would make you suddenly stop believing the lies you’ve been duped into.

Those who get "triggered" think they are just reacting in anger. No, they are actually being hijacked by programming within their own mind to create psychological defenses. So if I say, "God is real, and I can prove it," I know that the triggered masses will immediately pipe in with the same tired arguments. They won't listen to anything I say thereafter, but instead will continually say "There is no proof for God," even if I show them God's face or something.

I actually saw this happen. I was in a restaurant, having an extended conversation with a guy in a club. He was talking about everything from superheroes to human evolution to robotics. He talked about how certain people hear stuff, and it's "like a light just flicks off ," and they stop listening. Ironically, near the end of the night, he found out I was Christian and I saw this happen to him.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know