Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

foxy

Quote:

Trust me, there are no official religious views on ID, other than various (and diverse) teachings within some denominational groups, so any differences between Ken Millers POV vs the 'official religious views on ID' are based on faulty assumption from the beginning.

Hadda laugh at this. Your comment is so open ended .
1There are no "official religious views

2However there are diverse teachings within some denominational groups

3Therefore ken Millers views (v the nonextistent (according to you) official views on ID )are just based upon faulty assumptions that hes made'.
FYI Ken Miller ays exactly what youve stated. He gets his views from the Catholic Church , which is, even now, internally wrestling with ID as a convenient dodge where they can appear to be scientific , yet practice their "old time religion" unmolested by evidence

DO you even know what the hell youre talking about? You wanna have it so many ways that you leave yourself free of any positions at all.

Trust me, there are no official religious views on ID, other than various (and diverse) teachings within some denominational groups, so any differences between Ken Millers POV vs the 'official religious views on ID' are based on faulty assumption from the beginning.

What facts or figures are you going to use to rebut ID especially if that was the basis for Evolution?

The Catholic Church speaks authoritatively only to Catholics. It does not speak for me nor many millions of other Christians, Jews, and/or people of other religions who believe in ID.

foxy

Quote:

S/he with experience who can see that his/her experience does not conflict with accepted scientific theory?

Or the one who professes the scientific theory to be all that there is and denies that which he has not personally experienced?

Without miring yourself further, can you explain in more detail how you used deductive reasoning to arrive at these points?

The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Quote:

The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Foxfyre wrote:

What facts or figures are you going to use to rebut ID especially if that was the basis for Evolution?

ID is not the basis for evolution. What are you talking about?

The answer is, of course, as a few discerning viewers may well know, that the alliance set against ID is disturbed by such a notion because if it wasn't, feigning being disturbed aside, it would lose its only acceptable lever to prise open the money pot it sees glowing invitingly on the horizon once the forces of darkness are let loose.

Obviously such an alliance has infantry as well as officers and very few of the former have any experience of the forces of darkness being let loose, having been brought up in the manner of motherly decorum, and are thus completely oblivious to their existence and easily led into not only underestimating them but to not even allowing them any consideration.

At last, somebody actually has the brains to recognize Coulter's work as mostly satire, and at times brilliant satire at that despite her tendency to sometimes stray into bad taste or inappropriate humor. And yes Coulter takes her shots at the Right wingnuts as well as the wacko Left

) The blind men who each touch one part of the elephant have very different ideas about what an elephant is and each will describe it differently.

How do you know unless you can dispute ID for which there is no scientific means to challenge? How can you say for certain that there is no intelligent design behind the whole process of evolution?

Quote:

) The blind men who each touch one part of the elephant have very different ideas about what an elephant is and each will describe it differently.

Foxy, most principles in science arent "touching the elephant" so, in that respect, youre misapplying homilies again. Anyway the six wise men from Hindustan were not demonstarting deductive reasoning at all , in fact their s was an example of a complete fallacy in logic.(ooops) SO if you wish to use the example, knock yerself out.

Quote:

How do you know unless you can dispute ID for which there is no scientific means to challenge? How can you say for certain that there is no intelligent design behind the whole process of evolution?

Scientific evidence is not "revealed truth" it is a pile of testable, falsifiable and mostly circumstantial evidence that , so far, no countervailing competing theory has been able to knock down.

ID operates from a totally non-factual basis of pure assumption. ALL the work that has recently been done to look for "design" and pattern in life and the Universe has come up empty. Those of you who wish to embrace some silly notion that "because something looks complicated to me, it must have had a designer (who shall remain unnamed so we dont look like Tennessee hicks). If testing evolution is simply a matter of knocking out ID, thats no real problem because ID has , within it, the seeds of its own falsifiability and falsification. Sad but fact .

Coulter's aim at antiscience is at the other end of the political spectrum. An equally unabashed rightist, she is apparently disturbed by how factions within the political right abandon their normally rational standards when it comes to the issue of evolution.

You say much but produce little actual thought. Are you aware of this fact?

Foxfyre,

Intelligent Design was presented as an alternative explanation to the role played by "natural selection" in biological evolution.

In 1992, Dr. Michael Behe attempted to show that natural selection does not explain the evolution of complex biological systems. Behe stated that a complex system is "irreducible" if it would not be able to function were one of its components missing.

Since 1992, several biologists have shown that the examples given by Dr. Behe, although complex, are not irreducible. The individual components in each example were shown to be "selectable" through natural processes.

Conversely, I am arguing that for many of us, there is no quarrel between ID and the Theory of Evolution and you don't have to discount or discredit one in order to accept the other.

Well are we arguing one scientist's opinion versus others here? (If so, I'm getting plenty of practice there on the global warming thread.) Or are we arguing ID versus science here?

What are you scared of Foxy that keeps you debating at the level anti-IDers maintain. I am providing you with opportunities to present a grown up ladies' side on these matters and you are refusing them.

Quote:

Conversely, I am arguing that for many of us, there is no quarrel between ID and the Theory of Evolution and you don't have to discount or discredit one in order to accept the other.

As far as this thread is concerned that is very old hat. It is anti-IDers who continually return to it. IDers play in more refined areas than laboratories and they do not live on bread alone.