Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Before somebody jumps on my observations; the "scientific theory" already allows it to question any of its theories. That also includes Darwinsm/evolution - all part and parcel of science. That's what science is all about.

ghostie wrote-



You'll miss out on a great deal of fun and learning.

Who was that?

It seems ghostofgauss knows more than all the theologians that studied the bible and all the historians and anthroplogists that have studied this very fictional story with no support other than the bible.

I would ask, who were they?

About the only places in science that you'll get "proofs" are in the realms of mathematics and logic, and even then Gödel discovered that not even there can you derive a "proof" from within a closed system.

It's impossible to apply the Scientific Method to the Theory of Evolution because of the lack of a reasonable amount of control, and the absence of randomness with which to perform controlled experiments. Instead of being deductive, the theory of evolution relies on inductive reasoning through observation. There is a scientific methodology behind the TofE, and it is induction based, but it isn't the SM.

Interesting link:

http://members.aol.com/jorolat/spmah.html#con

seems that we are on square one with the exception that now evolution, rather than Intelligent Design is he point.

Tired

Infrablue sed it quite succinctly

evidence is as compelling as Atomic theory

Lots of scientists have tracked it in the wild in real time

supporting physical, chemical, geological etc data all leads to same conclusion.

Needs no miraculous interventions

pretty wel understood by anyone who takes a little time to read

Only a teeny minority of religions deny its occurence.

No real disagreement among scientists
There are a few scientists who, after working a life in one area, want to adopt a new modus in heuristics that lead to totally different (more religiously inclined) conclusions. Then this aint science, its Evangelism.
Skell was a damn good chemist in the application of carbenes and creating organo metallic compounds. That doesnt mean that hes "on the pulse" of evolutionary thinking. He even claims that his knowledge in clinical applications goes back to the 1940s . Weve unlocked the genome of hundreds of species and we can look into the evolutionary relationships of their very bar code.


ghostie-your another in a long line of people whove asked the same question in another thread. Im sure the answer is almost a "FAQ" status by now.

Everyone is making good points but omitting the historical significance of the Greeks and their gods and things discovered by them at a time when the rest of the world was still struggling with the concept of the wheel. Their discovery of Phi and other mathematical equations proves something was afoot
3 to 5000 years ago that has been so carefulle sweep under the carpet. I think looking for clues to the meaning of life or the process of creation bu purely scientific measure is only half of the story. many many things that happen in the metaphysical have no basis in scientific thought but prove avenues of our brothers and sisters in various places like the deep amazon jungle has access to universal secrets and truths via a Misterious DNA god accessed throught the ingestation of certain organic formulas that bring one to the threshold of impossible ideas and methods of acquiring knowledge. If Bill gates is using Homeric Greek because of it's precise mathematical qualities....then how did the Greeks come up with this mathematical language if they did not have contact with Zeus and others.
I really don't think the metaphysical world has much to do with people of narrow interpretation using only physical evidense to state it's claims.I don't think many scientist even make contact with this mystical energy called life force and it's ability to react to our thoughts and desirers.

Maybe that's because it doesn't exist, and it's all bunch of BS.

A visual summary of ID:

farmerman said:


I would like to know exactly what he is referring to. I don't know of any examples of evolution being observed in the wild. I would also like to know what "evidence" and "supporting physical, chemical, geological, etc. data" he is referring to. Please enlighten me.

Check out his posts in the "Evolution? How?" thread begining with this one.

Yes Rosborne,
That image sizes it up. A possible interpretation of the phaistos disk is that it was Zeus and his buddies who came down here and originated us. We are like our reality shows a new groupof beings all set in groups with different variables . I think all the half animal person creatures where real created beings made from a couple of Zeus' rouge scientist. It likewhat we do with vegetable today. We have purple califlower and yellow carrotts not to mention broccoli and asperagus made into one as I saw a few summers ago. According to some Dowsers the earth absorbs all our thoughts and energies.It then over time shows us details like in "Stone Faced Sober"

http://www.pbase.com/alkeme/stonefaced_sober

I am going to make another general statement pertaining to this topic. The statement is open to comments from anyone (positive or negative):

Science restricts itself to natural explanations of natural phenomena. Religion deals with the divine and issues that transcend the natural world. Therefore, issues of science are separate from issues of religion.

They are seperate in the same way that the left hand is seperate from the right hand.The pedantic polarisation is merely a matter of money,power and probably sex.

Please have a try at explaining how modern science has its roots in monastic contemplation of the infinite and why no other culture developed it with the same materials available for study.

ghost of gauss.
First,You dont have to talk around me, Im in the room so why not address me directly?

Rather than saying "I dont know of any examples" Why not ay, "Im aware of the following, but I disagree because,"

As you see, this thread has gotten quite long and so has the one on evolution. Weve gone over quite a bit and have been visisted by Creationists and IDers who, at least, have had arguments based upon their knowledge of the current and classical literature.
To start from scratch on you gets boring for others. Why not do as Infrablue asked and invest some of your own time. Its a bit fairer

This is true in a general sense, and it's true for science always.

The friction occurs for the religious, when their religion makes claims about empirically testable things which science understands differently (Young Earth is the best example).

At that point, the conclusions of science seem to be in conflict with their religion. When in fact, their religious veiws have simply grounded themselves on the harsh shores of reality. And that's their own fault for running their lofty ship aground.

Sorry about that farmerman. I didn't mean to sound snooty or anything. I'm a newbie, and I'm still getting used to the ettiquite.

How about this? Evolutionists propose a mechanism for the development of the eye in which a small patch of light-sensitive cells gradually becomes recessed until the aperture is small enough to create a focused image, etc. But just a patch of light-sensitive cells requires an enormously complex chemical process. This is just part of it:




So by what mechanism could that sequence possibly have evolved? And even if it did, would the animal that had it be able to interpret and assign meaning to the new sensation that it had? In other words, where would it get the software to run its new hardware?

Ghostofgauss. If were quoting Behe, make sure you get it all. If you would, also read page 5 OF "DARWINS BLACK BOX" you may be surprised as to what all Mike Behe stipulates unto.

Photoreception has evolved in several ymmetry forms for different bauplans since the pre CAmbrian. I dont profess to be an expert except in the Tell of the fossil record. It turns out that "rods and cones" are seen in the frontal nerve ganglia of very simple animals. The process of light sensetivity , like any other feature , can evolve from a simple to more complex structure. When you read the molecular biology direct from Mike, it does sound complex. However, think about any metabolic activity. They mostly all involve specific enzymatic and carrier reactions along with catalysis.
Mike Behe is a subscriber to evolution and common ancestry. His "Irreducible complexity" argument is like someone arbitrarilly stating that "this concept is too complex for us to unravel, So we have to stick in a God or two to make it happen".
Unfortunately for Mike Behe, science is working on evolution at the molecular level and, as the metabolic pathways of plants were unravelled in the last 25 years,further understandings of the various chemical cycles are being unravelled now.