Intelligent Design DOES NOT NEED A "GOD CREATED" theme to stand on. It can stand on the scientific notion of Intelligent Design alone. There are far more pieces of evidence that Evolutionist do not point out because they clash with evolution. Evolutionist and palentologist have been caught planting and manipulating many pieces of evidence to support evolution, and then new pieces of bones crop up that dismiss the evidence of the evolutionist. Lucy has been suspected not to be of the Homosapiens leaniage, as is the Neanderthal man, and this is from within the Evolutionist circles.
Yet, Intelligent Design has evidence in such things as Corn (what most of the world knew as Maize). It also has evidence as can be obtained by current lab experimentation, which we call Genetic Engineering.
So with all this evidence debunking evolution and scientificaly supporting Intelligent Design. Why do the "scientists" who support evolution afraid of the academic competition?
Why do evolutionist continue to say that Intelligent Design is NOT Science?
Because a series of questions about another theory is not sufficient to make a new theory ... much less a *testable* theory.
Every single statement of evidence given by ID advocates is in the form of *disproving* evolution. Science doesn't work that way. You don't just tear down the existing theory, you have to propose something in its place that explains the same evidence. You have to provide a theory that explains every fact that evolution explains (a tall order), PLUS some facts that defy evolution.
You can say that the Designer is not the same as God ... but this Designer has to have Godlike powers to be able to implement its "designs." And it has to have existed for a Godlike eternity for it not to require a meta-designer of its own. And it must have Godlike intelligence (hence the 'I' in ID) to be able to design the very things you claim are too "irreducibly complex" to be the product of evolution. So if this Designer is not God, then what is it? In religion, you don't have to answer this question ... but in science you do.
What *is* your hypothesis? How did this Designer originate? What is it's mechanism for design? What is its mechanism for *implementing* (creating) its designs? And what, pray tell is its *motive*? (Motive is not an issue for evolution ... evolution has no motive, no goal ... but when you introduce the word "intelligence" into your hypothesis, then you burden yourself with the need for motive.) Note that these are not questions disproving the Designer. These are questions about what the Designer *IS*, how it works.
Until you can flesh out the details of your hypothesis, it is not falsifiable, not testable. It can explain every fact, therefore it explains nothing. A Designer with unknown properties, beginning, or motive is untouchable by any scientific experiment. That is why it is not science. It is the very definition of "supernatural" ... beyond nature.
So Intelligent Design isn't even a fully-baked *hypothesis* ... much less a hypothesis that can be tested ... much less a hypothesis that *has* been tested to become a *theory*.
That's why it is clearly NOT SCIENCE.
.
Reply:Very simply; it's not falsifiable.
What evidence could possibly show that there was no intelligent designer? None. Even if an unassailable physical mechanism for each and every modification to every species since the beginning of time were shown, all an ID proponent would have to do is say, "Well, that's how the Designer did it."
And that's why it's not a "scientific notion" at all.
By the way, google "Wedge Document" if you don't think ID has anything to do with creation by God.
Reply:The points you bring up do pose questions that do not seem to immediately conform with some current evolutionary ideas. In a broader sense evolution could still explain them. There really is nothing out there that I have seen which "proves" intelligent design. Just because a few discoveries are not readily explained by present ideas, doesn't mean that intelligent design is at work. In my opinion, the evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming, clearly showing evolutionary development over time. You also bring up another good point. Evolution and intelligent design are simply scientific theories to explain things in the observed world, they are not meant to prove or disprove God. The problem with testing evolution is simply time. Evolution by definition is change over time. It is hard to create an experiment to span hundreds, or more accurately millions of years. Selective breeding and genetic engineering may be construed as a sort of survival of the fittest as easily as they fit with the idea of intelligent design. The intelligence that enables humans to engage in such tasks is itself a product of evolution.
Reply:They think they are an accident and I think so also for what it is worth.
Reply:That's sort of the point. Debunking (which no one has done, by the way) or taking random pot shots at evolution is not the same as proving Intelligent Design.
You prove a scientific hypothesis with test, measurement, and physical data. That has been done with evolution over, and over, and over. There are no serious scientists in the field who doubt it. They disagree sometimes on the path and mechanism in specific cases, but not the overall process. Intelligent Design, Creationism, 7 days to the Universe, Young Earth, whatever you wish to call it, at some point depends on Faith, not data.
That puts it in the realm of Philosophy or Theology, not Science. Keep your disciplines straight.
-----
Note: I always get a laugh out of the "irreducibly complex" line. There are trillions of paths evolution could have taken over the millenia. If we were sitting in the bottom of a methane ocean having this discussion telepathically, would our existence be any less complex and more probable? Out of all the possibilities that COULD have happened, we live in the one that did. That's just how it is.
Reply:I'm afraid Intelligent Design does not fit the defintion of science. Who formed a hypothesis? What was it? How was it tested? How was it confirmed or not confirmed.
However, Intelligent Design *is* appropriate for schools to teach in a science class. See my post at:
Reply:You seem to be well-informed about the "science" of ID (but you're woefully misguided concerning evolution). Perhaps you could provide a series of articles published in widely accepted, peer-reviewed science journals that establish ID as a viable scientific theory that stands by itself? That will give your argument some teeth - right now you're not saying very much.
I can give you 100 years of solid scientific literature that supports biological evolution. If you can't find some credible papers that support ID, then everything you say is wrong.
Reply:I'd like to know what you mean by "actively tested" in labs.
First, go see "Flock of Dodos" (www.flockofdodos.com).
Second, it's actually not a testable hypothesis. How do you prove that there is some greater intelligent force at work? It's like when early biologists believed in some sort of ether that filled the atmosphere and gave life to beings. They couldn't explain how life supposedly spontaneously arose because they didn't know about microorganisms yet. You can't theoretically prove that there's an intelligent goal using accepted scientific methods.
Maybe, in the future, we'll find a way that would allow science to prove such a force. In the meantime, however, we have to go by what has worked in the past. Plus, there are a lot of older scientists who are set in their ways and don't want to accept such a new theory. I think they get a lot more publicity than those scientists who tentatively accept intelligent design because they are more vocal and are in the majority. At this point, saying you believe in this idea might not be the best thing for your career.
Reply:Are there any experiments that you could think of that would DISPROVE intelligent design? Or would you believe it no matter what happened in experiments?
Scientific conclusions can be disproved if they are wrong. If I drop a stone and it falls UP, it would disprove gravity (oversimplified, but you get the idea). If ID can come up with a way to disprove if it is wrong, then it will be scientific. Until then, it is not.
FYI, there is a lot of seemingly unintelligent design in nature. Does that "prove" there is an unintelligent designer? Or, does evolution work one step at a time, modifying existing structures for new uses even thought the design does not work perfectly?
Reply:There is no academic competition. Most of the proponents of ID have neither qualifications nor learning in the area. In some cases their claims to academic achievement are false, and that even includes their supposed theological qualifications. Some are habitual liars. They are worse than the proponents of the Bermuda triangle drivel.
The fact that some fossil or other does not turn out to be exactly the thing that some newspaper might have said it was 30 years ago is neither here nor there. What the people who examined it might have said was probably somewhat different and their conclusions were probably more guarded than has been reported. You will only find what they actually said by reading the original scientific journal articles. These of course make no concession to the ignorant.
Evolutionists and paleontogists have been caught planting evidence? Oh yeah? I know of three cases, and if you are referring to the dear old Piltdown man as one I suggest you find out how the fraud (or just maybe practical joke) was exposed. No rantings from pulpits, no sermons from soapboxes and no tract handed out at a religious revival had anything to do with that. It was exposed by evolutionists, and if you check the story a bit deeper you will find that very few people outside Britain really took it seriously as a human fossil, and precious few inside Britain either. There were rumours of fraud as early as 1914. Most people who were qualified to have an opinion believed that it was at best a mistake.
The debunking of Piltdown was reported to British newspapers within a few days of it becoming certain. The museum even put on a special exhibition within a few weeks to show how the debunk was achieved.
Contrast this with the activities of some proponents of ID and creationism. At least two are proven liars who continue to spout their lies after they have been publicly corrected. In Australia their organisation was also close to financially fraudulent with multiple irregularities. I won't mention any names but they are well known.
These so called scientific creationism people have been hoaxed again and again. In 1986 a piece of wood from "Noah's Ark" that featured in a CBS TV presentation was revealed to come from a Californian tree unknown outside North America before 200 years ago. It was soaked in teriyaki sauce and baked in an oven to make it look old. Check out "George Jammal" on the net.
Intelligent design, creationism and creation science are a tissue of lies, misdirection, false argument and fraud.
Reply:The hypotheses coming from intelligent Design "scientist", irreducible complexity and specified complexity, have been thoroughly debunked. If these hypothesis could hold water, you would see dozens of scientists getting millions of $$$ in research money to further test and refine those hypothese to raise those hypotheses to theories.
On the other hand, Evolution Scientists can show many examples of evolution giving a mediocre or bad design to animals, such as rabbits, whose ancestors were carnivores, now have to eat their poo to get enough nutrition to survive. Not a very good design, but its good enough for rabbits to be in their niche and be quite successful. An intelligent designer would not have vestigal organs like an appendix in humans.
Evolution scientists would be happy to have a better theory on the origins and development of life if there was one to be developed. However, ID scientists are only interested in trying to fool people they are real scientists, their attempts to show real science have been pathetic failures. The only competition evolutionists have is for the truth.
Reply:All knowledge is math. to understand we must be able to compare measure and analyze data. We as human (product of god or not) believe that the math we have assigned to this data must be by design because it can be explained to a certain degree.
What we fail to realize is the data we are considering was created by us in our dimension of existence for us to understand.
We created the language to understand our surroundings and then point to that language as proof of design.
Special note.....God exists in everyone...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment