dear newbies,

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Many of the people who argue the strongest against intelligent design - some of which testified at the Dover trial for example, are openly theists AND they recognize the fact that intelligent design isn't science.

You can be a theist and a scientist - as most scientists in the US are.

Most scientists in the US are theists AND accept evolution. Evolution isn't equivalent to atheism. You don't need to be an atheist to accept evolution.

I don't think there is anything here that I would disagree with.

I don't know much about the Dover case except that the Media hype was "Oh Boy Creationists get their butts handed to them."

PsychoPawn,

Do you think that ID is falsifiable?

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't think there is anything here that I would disagree with.

I don't know much about the Dover case except that the Media hype was "Oh Boy Creationists get their butts handed to them."

They did, it wasn't just hype.

They found the intelligent design text book "of pandas and people" or something like that had come from a text that the creation science movement had used to try and get creationism into the classroom. That in itself isn't proof that it's the same thing though.

However, they found that the intelligent design version of the text book used the same definition for intelligent design as the version for creationism had for creationism. So if the intelligent design has the same definition as creationism then what does that mean?? (rhetorical question).

Parents who lead the drive to get it into the classroom were caught in bold faced lies.

One of the leading proponents of ID, Michael Behe, was caught on the stand admitting that if intelligent design was recognized as science then things like astrology would have to be acknowledged as being legit scientific theories too.

The transcript of the final decision can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision3.html#p294

Ken Miller, one of the theistic supporters of evolution who testified at that trial, has openly said that he was dismayed by the media portraying the trial as somehow being a blow to religion by atheism and of that sort.

As a side note, if you want to learn some more about the evidence for evolution, look up the videos of Ken Miller on YouTube - or check out his site:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

Also on YouTube check on a user by the name of "DonExodus2". He is a doctor (I think) who had majored in evolutionary biology and has some very good videos explaining the evidence for evolution (he's also a christian). I have learned a lot myself about evolution and the evidence for it from his videos and I think you, and other of those here that are skeptical of the theory of evolution would do yourselves some good to at least check out a few of them.

Originally posted by jaywill
PsychoPawn,

Do you think that ID is falsifiable?

I have a bunch to write about this question, but it'll have to wait since I have some errands to do first.

Send me a PM or something with a link to the thread if for some reason I forget. I'd like to address it. 🙂

Originally posted by jaywill
PsychoPawn,

Do you think that ID is falsifiable?

The short answer is no, it's not. It puts a supernatural explanation into a field whose purpose is to find natural reasons for the phenomena that we see in the world we live in.

The idea of "irreducible complexity" that is at the core of ID has been pretty much debunked due to the fact that every instance of an irreducibly complex system has had an explanation offered as to how gradual evolution could provide that very function. They miss the whole concept of exaptation and think that the whole bacterial flagellum, for example, HAD to have come into existence at once, when it didn't need to have.

If IS is not falsifiable than why do so many people extend so much energy to falsify it?

For instance you boast that SO MANY refutations have been offered to Behe's examples of irreducible complexity.

Can you have it both ways fella? If it is NOT falsifiable than how can you turn around and boast that ID has been debunked so many times?

Seems to me that you want your cake and to eat it too.

Originally posted by jaywill
If IS is not falsifiable than why do so many people extend so much energy to falsify it?

For instance you boast that SO MANY refutations have been offered to Behe's examples of irreducible complexity.

Can you have it both ways fella? If it is NOT falsifiable than how can you turn around and boast that ID has been debunked so many times?

Seems to me that you want your cake and to eat it too.

It seems to me that you're not separating the whole "theory" from its parts.

ID isn't falsifiable as a whole because it posits a supernatural creator for which there is no way to falsify the existence of it.

One of the supposed evidences of ID is Michael Behe's claim of irreducible complexity. This is the part that has been explained why he's just wrong since there is a way to argue against this without talking about "god".

People have taken so much time to debunk ID in the way that they have had to show people that it is not science. If school boards were smart enough to see that themselves then scientists wouldn't have to.

The proponents of intelligent design try to bypass the normal scientific process by going through the courts instead of actually convincing actual scientists by having their papers published in peer reviewed journals and showing that their "theory" is science.

And by the way, my name isn't "fella". If we're going to have a civil discussion, then let's have one.

Originally posted by jaywill
If IS is not falsifiable than why do so many people extend so much energy to falsify it?

Falsifiable and false are not the same.

Falsifiability is the ability for a hypothesis to make an experimental prediction which can be tested and found to be wrong or right.

Being false, like Behe's arguments are, has nothing to do with falsifiability, since ID makes no testable hypotheses.

====================================

ID isn't falsifiable as a whole because it posits a supernatural creator for which there is no way to falsify the existence of it.

=====================================

Can you provide for me a definition of ID Theory which states that that is the case by ID Theorists themselves?

Otherwise that may be just your charge and your spin of a definition.

What I see is a willingness to explore Intelligent when it is amply attested that all other explanations for something have failed.

You seem to be saying that by some stubburness science should never give up looking for non-intellgent natural causes no matter how inadequate the explanations are.

ID seems opened to both natural causes and intelligent causes.

=======================================
One of the supposed evidences of ID is Michael Behe's claim of irreducible complexity. This is the part that has been explained why he's just wrong since there is a way to argue against this without talking about "god".
========================================

Behe has a website where he responds to some of the alleged fault finding with his examples.

I see a lot of boasting of victory in proving Behe incorrect. I don't see a lot of substance to the boasts.

Is not being able to avoid talking about "no god" as faulty as not being able to [avoid] talk about god?

Do your opinions make it impossible to avoid eventually talking about there being no god?


====================================
People have taken so much time to debunk ID in the way that they have had to show people that it is not science. If school boards were smart enough to see that themselves then scientists wouldn't have to.
===================================

Sounds rather arrogant to me.

I don't think you're aware of the number of students who would think its wacky to assume that accidents account for all the biological systems we see.

No, it is not because their Pastor drummed it into them. It is because it doesn't seem to make good sense.

So some educators feel that the teaching of Intelligent Design along with the traditional approach is good education.

The hype of the paranoid that such teaching will lead to hymn singing and prayer meetings in the science class just that - negative propoganda.




The proponents of intelligent design try to bypass the normal scientific process by going through the courts instead of actually convincing actual scientists by having their papers published in peer reviewed journals and showing that their "theory" is science.

I think this is untrue and like an ostrich berying its head in the sand refusing to see just how biased the establisment is against recognition of any possible alternative to Darwinism.

Would you want to be considered a "peer" of someone who had written an ID article? Since you disdain to be identified with such, you would withdraw "peer reviewing" his or her material.

Suppose your consideration of an ID paper was cause of suspicion so that YOU lost your job and / or funding?

It is hard to get something "peer reviewed" when no one wants to be considered as your peer. Guilt by association is a strong form of propoganda.


====================================
And by the way, my name isn't "fella". If we're going to have a civil discussion, then let's have one.
========================================

Let's also stop stretching the facts - Like suggesting that ID by definition posits a supernatural intellegence, sir.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================

ID isn't falsifiable as a whole because it posits a supernatural creator for which there is no way to falsify the existence of it.

=====================================

Can you provide for me a definition of ID Theory which states that that is the case by ID Theorists themselves?

Otherwise that ma ...[text shortened]... esting that ID by definition posits a supernatural intellegence, sir.[/b]

Blah blah blah blah, rubbish.


Nothing, vacuous, obsolete.


Your arguments are 150 years out of date.

ID is repackaged creationism. That has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. They even found the words "creationism" and "inteeligent design" spliced together in an early version of "Of Pandas and People", where someone had just used Word's "Find and Replace" function.

=====================================
The proponents of intelligent design try to bypass the normal scientific process by going through the courts instead of actually convincing actual scientists by having their papers published in peer reviewed journals and showing that their "theory" is science.
==============================================

This is hypocritical, sir. Exponents of macroevolution observe micro changes in oganisms and extrapolate those observations to assume unobservable events have occured.

Do you have a similiar concern about "by-passing" the fact that no one has observed an ape to human transition in birth?

Where's your concern for by-passing the normal scientific method in that case?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
The proponents of intelligent design try to bypass the normal scientific process by going through the courts instead of actually convincing actual scientists by having their papers published in peer reviewed journals and showing that their "theory" is science.
==============================================

...[text shortened]... birth?

Where's your concern for by-passing the normal scientific method in that case?[/b]

An ape to human transition in birth would contradict evolution and disprove it. You should be looking for that case.

Evolution does not claim that an ape gave birth to a human being.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================

ID isn't falsifiable as a whole because it posits a supernatural creator for which there is no way to falsify the existence of it.

=====================================

Can you provide for me a definition of ID Theory which states that that is the case by ID Theorists themselves?

Otherwise that ma ...[text shortened]... esting that ID by definition posits a supernatural intellegence, sir.[/b]

Can you provide for me a definition of ID Theory which states that that is the case by ID Theorists themselves?

William Dembski, one of the leading proponents of ID said in response to the question "Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?":

"I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

That's one. It's also not just my spin of a definition, it's what the dover case came to in court from a non-activist, conservative judge no less. This was based on Behe's testimony in no small part either.

I don't think you're aware of the number of students who would think its wacky to assume that accidents account for all the biological systems we see.

Whether a lot of students think something is wacky or not is irrelevant to whether it's true or whether it's valid.

Would you want to be considered a "peer" of someone who had written an ID article? Since you disdain to be identified with such, you would withdraw "peer reviewing" his or her material.

I would have no problem being considered a "peer" of someone who had written an ID article. I would only withdraw the publication of their article based on whether it is science or not. If/when ID becomes scientific in that it makes falsifiable predictions, etc... then they should and will be published.

Suppose your consideration of an ID paper was cause of suspicion so that YOU lost your job and / or funding?

When has this been confirmed to have happened? ..and no, the cases in expelled the movie were far less than convincing.

You claim the same tired argument that ID proponents are merely being persecuted by the evil darwinist conspiracy to maintain their scientific hold. It's the victim complex defined.

Scientists have an inherent motive to take down the existing established theory. In fact, scientists achieve more fame and fortune by doing so then by writing any article confirming evolution, relativity or other established theory ever could.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Then the church should relinquish any influence it has over politics, etc. If you cannot prove your God exists,if you have no evidence whatsoever, then there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

I didn't ask to be taken seriously.

====================================

William Dembski, one of the leading proponents of ID said in response to the question "Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?":

=====================================

Wrong Question.

The question should be: "What is your definition of Intelligent Design Theory in science?"

Some evolutionists can say that as a result of thier studies they do not believe in a Supreme Creator. That is not a definition of their Theory of Evolution.

The fact that they have such a belief does not make their theory incorrect for that reason. And the fact that Dembski says " Oh by the way, I believe in God" does not make his method of detecting intelligent causation necessarily wrong because of that.

Now why don't you go back to Dembski and inquire what his DEFINITION of Intelligent Design Theory is. I didn't ask for a coincidental. I asked for a DEFINITION.

======================================
"I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
=======================================

I believe so also. That's just his belief and not his definition of Intelligent Design Theory.

Would you be happy if I said that the Definition of Evolution Theory is that Evolutionists do not believe in the Christian God?

Is "There is NO GOD" a part of the definition of Evolution Theory?

Should I count that as its definition simply because Dawkins and some others say that they are atheists too? Would that be fair to Dr. Miller of Brown University, a strong proponent of Evolution. He wrote "Finding Darwins God" and appears like some other Evolutionists apparently not to include the non-existence of God in his working definition of Evolution.

Go back and provide me with a Definition of Intelligent Design Theory and not a coincidental belief that they hold.

=========================================
That's one. It's also not just my spin of a definition, it's what the dover case came to in court from a non-activist, conservative judge no less. This was based on Behe's testimony in no small part either.
===========================================

I have read Darwin's Black Box and I don't recall any such definition of ID.

This still comes off like your propoganda.

It is as unfair as me saying that "There is no God" is part of the definition of Evolution.

==============================================

I don't think you're aware of the number of students who would think its wacky to assume that accidents account for all the biological systems we see.


Whether a lot of students think something is wacky or not is irrelevant to whether it's true or whether it's valid.

=========================================

True. And I think it is invalid also. But you go ahead and cling to it.

You want to think accidents over a long long time arrived at a human reproductive system without the aid of "Know How" and intelligence? You go ahead and embrace that belief. I don't have that much faith to believe that such things come about accidently.