Does love exist

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But it's NOT SCIENCE!!! Should we teach cooking in an English class? How about chemistry in a french class?? Why not basketball in maths class??

Then no ID in science. ID is belief, not science.

...

In fact, if you agree to read it, I'll pay for it.

OK. As I understand ID it talks about how life as it stands today reflects an intelligent designer. The argument is based on the need for intelligence to properly structure DNA (or was it RNA?). I don't understand why that isn't science. It appears to be a detailed look at the human body and drawing a conclusion for what was found. Isn't that science?

My library has the Selfish Gene book, but both copies are checked out currently. I'll keep my eye open for it.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
OK. As I understand ID it talks about how life as it stands today reflects an intelligent designer. The argument is based on the need for intelligence to properly structure DNA (or was it RNA?). I don't understand why that isn't science. It appears to be a detailed look at the human body and drawing a conclusion for what was found. Isn't that science?
...[text shortened]... sh Gene book, but both copies are checked out currently. I'll keep my eye open for it.

DF

It would be scientific if the theory went through testing and it was found that nothing could prove it wrong. However ID has never managed to uphold this, it has been shown at every point along the way that ID does not stand up to scientific testing. All of the theories put forth by ID scientists have been found to err and are dismissed be the scientific community outside of those ID pro scientists who continue to claim that it is correct. In the end it comes down to 'I can't imagine that complex structures are possible without an intelligent designer, so it must be so, despite the total lack of scientific evidence to back it up'.

Originally posted by Starrman
It would be scientific if the theory went through testing and it was found that nothing could prove it wrong. However ID has never managed to uphold this, it has been shown at every point along the way that ID does not stand up to scientific testing. All of the theories put forth by ID scientists have been found to err and are dismissed be the scientific ...[text shortened]... ent designer, so it must be so, despite the total lack of scientific evidence to back it up'.

So is there another scientific explaination for the ID claims, or is there just a lack of scientific evidence to support the claims?
I.e. is there a scientific explaination on how the flagellum(sp?) motor came about? (which, I believe, the IDers say can't be evolved into).

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
So is there another scientific explaination for the ID claims, or is there just a lack of scientific evidence to support the claims?
I.e. is there a scientific explaination on how the flagellum(sp?) motor came about? (which, I believe, the IDers say can't be evolved into).

DF

I'll try and find the link later, but yes, the flagellum argument has been refuted. It featured in the Dover County School Trial recently and I was fortunate enough to see a lecture by one of the scientists who worked on it.

So we're talking about refuting the ID claims as they appear.

i personally think that love is just a word that was made up not sure by who to explain the your emotional behaviour towards the other sex .

Originally posted by DragonFriend
OK. As I understand ID it talks about how life as it stands today reflects an intelligent designer. The argument is based on the need for intelligence to properly structure DNA (or was it RNA?). I don't understand why that isn't science.

ID might be considered a scientific hypothesis. However as all arguements put forward so far for it have been refuted and no predictions have been confirmed and no other supporting evidence found it can be considered a failed hypothesis. The problem most scientists have with it is that there are proponents of ID who wish it to be taught in schools as a valid scientific Theory which it most definately is not and has never been.

It appears to be a detailed look at the human body and drawing a conclusion for what was found. Isn't that science?
Actually if you look carefully at its proponents you will find that they drew the conclusion and then started looking for the evidence. This would almost still be acceptable if they had found some evidence but they didnt, instead they tried to fabricate some without success.