Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Intelligent Design proposes that there is some intelligent designer, possibly God, that used evolution to create all life. There is no way to scientifically prove that this is so. In fact, all the proof consists of, "this is so complex, it couldn't have happened naturally". That's bad science.

Intelligent Design proposes that there is some intelligent designer, possibly God, that used evolution to create all life. There is no way to scientifically prove that this is so. In fact, all the proof consists of, "this is so complex, it couldn't have happened naturally". That's bad science.

wolf-

You are obviously going to define intelligent design in a manner that enables you to give it a good going over from the point of view that you have taken.

That has nothing to do with anybody else.

There is no way to scientifically prove that the Wankfest was less dignified than the Village Fete scene I caricatured earlier. I could easily write 10,000 words to put some flesh on my caricature. Make it prettier so to speak. Once you've said "jerk off" that's it on the Wankfest. 200 times.

Psychologists might think otherwise but they are healers and if you don't need healing what do you want a psychologist for?

I see, spendi preaches an eschewal if ID, but embraces an id. What a copout. Youve been listening to Dylan and thinking that he said something meaningful in one of his tunes.

I don't know what ID is so how can I eschew it. It is a shifting consensus isn't it. I can feel and smell id in art.

I'll tell you what's a cop-out. Sweeping generalisations without having read previous posts and delivered in a bombastic and contemptuous manner.

One doesn't drive on the right hand side of the road because the Highway Code says to do. Dylan stands or falls on his words not on his name which is a label. I don't care who writes the words as long as they are worth following in the jingle jangle morning. Don't knock Dylan because you can't follow the words.

I have been reading Anthony Burgess on aspects of the American higher education and he worked in it. It sounds crumby. He makes it sound like treatment in the community or a scheme to keep official unemployment rates down. It is removing busybodies from the educational system that is the main thing. ID/anti-ID is for busybodies not for education. It's for meetings and self-publicity.

I quote Dylan more than most because he's your man with a host of your honours hanging off his neck. I daren't quote some stuff I know on account of the lady agenda.

spendi.
Do these "honours" mean something to you? are they validation of something other than commercial success? You seem to like to argue with yourself more than with others.

WISCONSIN UPDATE

American Association for the Advancement of Science


Statement On The Teaching Of Evolution

By the Board of Directors
American Association for the Advancement of Science
St. Louis, Missouri | February 16, 2006


Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students' understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences.

Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one.

Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. Scientists ask questions about the natural world, formulate hypotheses to answer the questions, and collect evidence or data with which to evaluate the hypotheses. Scientific theories are unified explanations of these phenomena supported by extensive testing and evidence. The theory of evolution, supported by extensive scientific findings ranging from the fossil record to the molecular genetic relationships among species, is a unifying concept of modern science. Of course, our understanding of how evolution works continues to be refined by new discoveries.

Many of the proposed bills and policies aim explicitly or implicitly at encouraging the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classes as an alternative to evolution. Although advocates of Intelligent Design usually avoid mentioning a specific creator, the concept is in fact religious, not scientific. In an October 18, 2002 resolution, the AAAS Board underlined the inappropriateness of teaching Intelligent Design in the science classroom because of its "significant conceptual flaws in formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts." Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania firmly reached similar conclusions in the Dover Area School District case.

The sponsors of many of these state and local proposals seem to believe that evolution and religion are in conflict. This is unfortunate. They need not be incompatible. Science and religion ask fundamentally different questions about the world. Many religious leaders have affirmed that they see no conflict between evolution and religion. We and the overwhelming majority of scientists share this view.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 USA
Tel: 202 326 6400 www.aaas.org

I have never seen you respond so quickly, timber. Is it because I posted news about Wisconsin?

Nah, not at all - just happened to be in the neighborhood.

Now Wisconisn has its 15 minutes. Im glad that the spotlight has passed from our stage. Its rather embarrassing to be just "another battleground" where Evolution theory is being tested by a bunch of doctrine driven Gomers.
Notice , that within each state , the test positions have been slightly different. Here , were going to get a full test of the "teach the controversy" issue.

See if they can hoist it up the pole and if anyone'll salute.

Those of us in Illinois can remain aloof and provide an objective assessment of what is going on in the other states.

Actually this point made by farmerman is far more significant than what I had quoted earlier.

timber-

Can you really not see through the spiel of the AAAS that you quoted.

Others have sought ways to provide-



It has set us back time after time having to deal with them. We all know how they are to be informed and on whose behalf they will be productive.

The AAAS of course.And its lickspittles and lackeys who it flatters into line.

The trouble is that these nice postive words are the nub of the issue which the AAAS has obviously forgotten as it takes for granted that they mean what the AAAS mean in what might almost be a flounce of self-satisfaction and certainty.

Science doesn't need any associations to promote it. It's having to be held back don't you know. Scientist are at it not sitting in offices composing press handouts within a circle of wagons.

John Smiths smooth still on happy hour I presume.

spendi
What an utter simpleton you are spendi.

One presumes you mean by that a naive innocent unversed in the ways of the world as you must be to provide a contrast. A simpleton couldn't call another simpleton a simpleton because he wouldn't know that the simpleton was a simpleton whereas someone who is not a simpleton wouldn't suffer under such a handicap.

Hey presto. Your assertion is an assertion of you being the opposite of a simpleton.

That's scientific proof enough for me as I feel sure it will be to all the other simpletons on these threads.

(Curtain. Curtain!! CURTAIN!!!! DROP THE FEEWKING CURTAIN QUICK!!)

It is the definition that most people agree on. I find it strange you dispute my defintion when a few posts later on and before, you claim to not know what ID is.



Irrelevant, like much of your prattle.

Intelligent Design is bad science, because you cannot prove any of its assertions empircally no matter how hard you tried. The Wankfest isn't science and doesn't even claim to be science or a scientific theory, unlike Intelligent Design.

wolf provided-



The point wolf was to show that an anti-IDer cannot have a sense of dignity. It wasn't to pass any judgements on that. Just to state it as a fact.
The Village Fair and the Wankfest are both just happenings to be judged materialistically and without the slightest trace of subjectivity. An anti-IDer would be equally comfortable watching a video of both events in a domestic setting after a meal for all the in-laws.

Outside of that one gets into the half-baked zone and a half-baked anti-IDer is a half-baked IDer by definition.

It was only irrelevant to those who failed to see the point and that is a long way from being irrelevant full stop. You are making assertions there my dear which is what IDers do all the time. Similarly with "prattle".

I really don't understand why you posted there wolf.