Flaws Found in Intelligent Design Theory.

Both theories are flawed, in some aspects--and both are incomplete on their own. That is the fundamental flaw of the debate.

Intelligent design is a 'force' and evolution is a 'function.'
There is a difference, but these two work together.

However, both sides of the debate are faulty due to people's confusion with science and opinion, and the need to exert beliefs over others in order to validate them personally and justify views.

0 Replies

I see no inconsitency in evolution. Fossil records prove that life evolved. The only possible question is "when did the earliest life start and how?" There are many scientific and philosophical explanations for this.

0 Replies

Science takes theory seriously. Hypothesis is the float balloon. Hypothesis is conjecture so the Biblical Genesis is conjecture or hypothesis and not very good I'm afraid as it is full of holes.

0 Replies

Personally I find ID bemusing, the only surprise is that some people fail to see the joke and treat it as a viewpoint rather than a beautifully sardonic parody of science.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

I have a theory that a giant blue rabbit created the universe. Is mine a legitimate theory?

You flake! How many times have I told you he was green!

0 Replies

To suggest that Intelligent Design is an imperfect theory because it has flaws gives it too much credit. It is not a credible but imperfect theory; it is ABSURD from the beginning. IT IS NOT EVEN WRONG!!!

0 Replies

Quote:

However, both sides of the debate are faulty due to people's confusion with science and opinion, and the need to exert beliefs over others in order to validate them personally and justify views.

There is no 'debate' any more than if a bunch of hysterical cultists claimed the moon was made of cheese.
These are not equal but opposite viewpoints. One is rational, the other blatant rhetoric. The only 'debate' comes from those that don't know what they are talking about to begin with, and invariably think evolution states 'we came from monkeys' , 'life came from nothing', and believe there is such a thing as 'darwinists'
It's really quite absurd.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

I have a theory that a giant blue rabbit created the universe. Is mine a legitimate theory?

Why wouldn't it be? A theory is just a theory.

1. a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done

2. that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied, science, etc.

3. popularly, a mere conjecture, or guess

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

However, both sides of the debate are faulty due to people's confusion with science and opinion, and the need to exert beliefs over others in order to validate them personally and justify views.

There is no 'debate' any more than if a bunch of hysterical cultists claimed the moon was made of cheese.
These are not equal but opposite viewpoints. One is rational, the other blatant rhetoric. The only 'debate' comes from those that don't know what they are talking about to begin with, and invariably think evolution states 'we came from monkeys' , 'life came from nothing', and believe there is such a thing as 'darwinists'
It's really quite absurd.

Debate, or conflict--whatever. But just because the majority of those who feel threatened, somehow, by the idea of evolution being contrary their set idea on 'god' doesn't mean there isn't validity in some part of the idea. I don't think either 'side' is completely right, and I don't see conclusive evidence for such an unbalanced truth. And I could care less how it turns out it really is--it has no effect on what I think inside. The Earth is here and we are here. Does it really matter so much how it came to be?

Now, to think that the bible is so literal that unless the whole world agrees the world was created in 6 24 hour days (an idea which I find absurd, as well) and to not have investigated one side while taking the other, in order to defend one's own shaky theology, is definitely not furthering such a cause.

Bottom line: If it wasn't fundamentally about God vs no God, then it wouldn't be such a problem. Standing on the outside, looking in at the arena, it's just another version of the same old fight. That can't be 'won.'

0 Replies

ID is more of a postulate than a theory.
However, seeing as how Science depends on empirical information, I do not see how it can be taught in science classes. ID does not possess empirical proofs.

A scientific theory needs to be empirical.

0 Replies

QA,
I don't think you get it.
There are no sides, there is no debate. There is no conflict. A conflict implies a stuggle on both sides.
The only 'struggle' is to keep 'not science' out of science classrooms, but that is neither here nor there with regards to the issue itself

The vast majority of IDers dispute one major claim, that is the claim of abiogenesis, which isn't even the same field of science as evolution.
In short, they are clueless. They are fruitlessly attacking a strawman of their own design.

There are next to no people that understand evolutionary science that dispute it, like I said, the naysayers are generally those that are ignorant to the facts.

Religious media hypes the 'ID vs Evolution' nonsense as a rhetorical ploy to have creationism weighed on the same level as actual science, which is simply preposterous and honestly sickens me on an intellectual level.

0 Replies

Abiogenesis isn't the only idea developed as to where life exist. There is also thought that life came to Earth from other planetary bodies, or asteroids.

0 Replies

Yes, that's true.
But Abiogenesis postulates the 'life from the primordial soup' theory.
Evolution is entirely unconcerned with the origins of life, only the adaptation of life.

0 Replies

Hi Nick,
As you may have noticed "theories" of themselves may have little to do with other humans perceptions.

If your questions about the universe are answered satisfactorily in your opinion by the "blue rabbit" hypothesis then I would grant you that from your point of view it's a good theory.

But if you wish to teach my kids, solicit contributions, or earn a living then may I be forgiven for asking what observations do you have in support of your theory?

Naturally I agree with one part of the "Big Blue Rabbit" theory. If you had enough rabbit fur eventually you would end up with a "black hole". They seem to be essential to our understanding of the universe Smile

Perhaps we should attempt to describe some attributes that the "Big Blue Rabbit" must have other than possessing blue fur. Later Exclamation

0 Replies

ID also has no imperical evidence. My blue rabbit theory is just as valid. If you look closely at some of the constellations and turn you head sideways you can see the unmistakable figure of a rabbit gazing down on us. The Earth is blue, therefore, the rabbit is also blue.

0 Replies

At some point of complexity in organic molecules one will absorb energy in some form and divide. That would probably be where evolution actually starts.

My personal favorite candidates are the aberrant? proteins called prions which are associated nowadays with Altzheimers disease and Kuru but there are reportedly some viruses that also cannot be killed.

So as an aside, If a self replicating molecule cannot be killed (altered in such a way that it will not divide under any subsequent conditions) is it alive Question

0 Replies

I would say a resounding YES to that.

Just off the top of my head.

0 Replies

Two quick things:

1) That argument against god is older than Jesus. It was originally presented as an examination of panda bears and how poorly adapted they are for obtaining food.

2) You are misconstruing the concept of "intelligent design". It holds merely that an "intelligent being" created us and not that all of the "intelligent being's" works are perfect and infallible.

That said, I think intelligent design is utterly ridiculous and deserves no place in public discourse.

0 Replies

Re: Flaws Found in Intelligent Design Theory.

NickFun wrote:

In an announcement sure to rock the scientific world, Dr. Jack Harvey, a noted biochemist, claims he has found several flaws in the scientifically regarded theory of "intelligent design".

"There are several aspects to the theory that just don't fit together", Dr. Harvey claims. "Penguins, for example. Why would any intelligent being design such a bird, unless as a cruel joke". Harvey claims that the birds awkward motions and inability to fly are not intelligent at all. "In fact, Dr. Harvey continues, "this bird is the work of a total moron".

Dr Harvey also claims that mosquitos, flies and many forms of bacteria are also not intelligently designed. "Not to mention ostriches", Harvey says, "Have you ever seen a more ridiculous looking animal?"

Harvey also mentioned the lazy Sloth and the cuddly yet worthless Koala Bear as examples of creatures made by a less-than-intelligent design.

Harvey claims that even human beings have faults which a truly intelligent being would have solved before placing them on Earth. "Some humans are fine", he said, "while others tend toward obesity or develop some sort of illness. A truly intelligent creator would not have allowed such discrepancies".

Dr. Rob Weinstein, a respected molecular biologist, disagreed with Harvey's statements. "Harvey has no idea what he's talking about", Weinstein stated, "even the smartest of us make little mistakes. To err is human!"

Some scientists say that Havey's claims bolster the ridiculous idea of "evolution".

NickFun,
Call your Dr. Harvey here on the forum and ask him to discuss this issue.

In my view, if Penguins have no legs but feet only and can't fly like the other birds, but they still survive beautifully in the wild means actually that their creator is brilliant. Same goes for all others.

0 Replies

Hate to keep posting this Mencken quote but his mind was a bit, if not a lot, above ours:

Imagine the Creator as a low comedian, and at once the world becomes explicable.

0 Replies

Flaws Found in Intelligent Design Theory.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know