Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote:

Thank you Tele, you just proved why ID isn't science. It can't be tested by the scientific method. Because it can't be tested by the scientific method it can't be science. How much more clear can it be?

If it is true that science has no way to distinguish something designed from something not designed then this is just as much a problem for the blind watchmaker hypothesis as it is for ID. One is just the flip side of the other. Therefore, the inference of blind watchmaking in science cannot be tested against a null hypothesis. Thus, if someone says, "X is the result of blind watchmaking," we need to remember that such a claim was made without an empirically validated criterion for differentiating aspects of biotic reality that may have originated via blind watchmaking from those that may have been created by an intelligence. This means blind watchmaking hypotheses are circular accounts with no way to confirm they are true or even approximate truth.

ID is not an interventionist theory. It's only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation.

It's not taught as theory in these schools, nor is ID taught as a theory in these schools. It's a bonefide science class without reference to ID.

The gaping holes are not present in evolution but there is a gigantic gaping hole in ID

But, yes, the "Hoover salesman" (used as a metaphor for ID salesman) is fearful that once someone examines the Bissell (evolution), their "theory" will fall apart like fabric made out of cheese.

Combustion? Combustion? Go read some books.

Lightwizard wrote:

Combustion? Combustion? Go read some books.

Please .......

Prior to the Big Bang, where did the necessary elements originate? What caused the combustion?

Which theological schools?

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

Combustion? Combustion? Go read some books.

Please .......

Don't you give us that look. It's obvious from the below statement you made that you aren't versed very well in science.

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Prior to the Big Bang, where did the necessary elements originate? What caused the combustion?

Big Bang Theory is a completely different and separate theory in itself. It has nothing to do with Evolution Theory, with the exception that Big Bang states that the Universe is at least 13.7 billion years old and hence confirms that there was enough time for evolution to take place.

That's it. Big Bang contributes nothing else to Evolutionary Theory. In fact, we don't even need the Big Bang Theory to confirm that there was enough time for Evolution to take place.

All you need is to confirm how old the Earth is through its ice core, fossil records, age of certain rock strata etc. etc. Therefore, the Big Bang Theory is not required to confirm Evolution.

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Which theological schools?

Well, my one for a start. Caterham School. It's not really a faith school, but it was founded by a Bishop and is very insistent on upholding its traditional values.

Before there's any further fluffing of skirts and flashing of diplomas hereabouts, please let it be known that I firmly believe in evolution.

It is obvious and ongoing. But at some point the origin of species must be traced to its ... origins ... and presently the science curricula in this country teaches that a Big Bang set everything in motion and it is taught as indisputable fact.

To distance one from the other would be highly convenient for the evolutionists, but apparently many rational, educated people choose to question the gaping holes that scientists choose to ignore ... a pursuit, gentlemen, that has revealed much more science fiction than pure science.

Yes, the origins of the species... not the elements that created life. You seek a Theory of Everything, I see, unless I'm misreading your words. I myself doubt such a thing exists.

As I said, the facts recorded in Kitzmiller v. Dover made me skeptical against ID, and I only mentioned them to give you an idea of how good your evidence of its merits will have to be to persuade me.

So, what's your evidence?

Thomas says:

Quote:

As I said, the facts recorded in Kitzmiller v. Dover made me skeptical against ID, and I only mentioned them to give you an idea of how good your evidence of its merits will have to be to persuade me.

So, what's your evidence?

What would you count as evidence? I've made several attempts at this to no avail. What do you want? I provided a list of all the things that identify creationism and then showed that ID doesn't advocate these things. What more can I do? I've been following ID for over 10 years now and I think I'm pretty familiar with its concepts. I was attracted to it because it is a middle ground between creationism and blind watchmaking. If a person isn't an atheist or a creationist this is the place to be.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Yes, the origins of the species... not the elements that created life. You seek a Theory of Everything, I see, unless I'm misreading your words. I myself doubt such a thing exists.

I hate it when posters define an obvious word, but what-the-hell:

Theory: A formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree.

A theory is a theory. Creationists, IDists, Evolutionists, BigBangists, TheoryOfEverythingists all hang on the same hook. For evolutionists to smugly lift themselves from that hook is reprehensible.