ID is not science

[lopez23]

Neither is creationism. All ID and christian creationism say is that god can magically call things into existence whenever he feels like it. That is your premise in believing in creationism and ID. God snaps his metaphysical fingers and goes "poof" whenever he feels like it.

Now if god can do this why wasn't he slighlty more creative? I mean he has the power of the universe at his hand, yet can only come up with one basic set of instructions for all life on earth>>>DNA, RNA,proteins.

Why is all life on earth related? How come you can look at the dna of a chimpanzee and human and get a 98% correlation in base pairs?

Even ID advocates have said there is no scientific evidence supporting ID. Anyone able to find one single scientific study supporting ID? Anyone?

Every life form on earth is related. We are all the same.

 

[Smilebomb]

Now if god can do this why wasn't he slighlty more creative? I mean he has the power of the universe at his hand, yet can only come up with one basic set of instructions for all life on earth>>>DNA, RNA,proteins.

Why is all life on earth related? How come you can look at the dna of a chimpanzee and human and get a 98% correlation in base pairs?

Even ID advocates have said there is no scientific evidence supporting ID. Anyone able to find one single scientific study supporting ID? Anyone?

Every life form on earth is related. We are all the same.

I don't think that using only one design means that God wasn't the creator or whatever you are trying to say. I don't think it means He wasn't creative either.

I mean... for every positive, there will be a negative. Why didn't God make our muscles bigger? We'd be better workers, we'd be more capable of dealing with nature, and so on. We wouldn't be as transportable though. We would need more material to build cars and planes and bikes or whatever. The earth can only supply so much. We would consume more food. Why didn't God make us not require food? In that case, why not air? Why didn't God just create us without a need for anything? Why didn't He make us immortal? We wouldn't love Him for one. He wanted to give us freewill to choose to love Him, He didn't want a Heaven yet.

There is always a negative. Only one set of instructions for all life on earth? God has His ways of doing things. They are higher then ours anyway. Shouldn't worry about it.

Neither is creationism.

And I would suppose you are an evolutionist? Well... that isn't science either. Science is the study of observations. What observations have you made about evolution? I haven't seen any in my backyard.

Peace

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Neither is creationism. All ID and christian creationism say is that god can magically call things into existence whenever he feels like it. That is your premise in believing in creationism and ID. God snaps his metaphysical fingers and goes "poof" whenever he feels like it.

Now if god can do this why wasn't he slighlty more creative? I mean he has the power of the universe at his hand, yet can only come up with one basic set of instructions for all life on earth>>>DNA, RNA,proteins.

Why is all life on earth related? How come you can look at the dna of a chimpanzee and human and get a 98% correlation in base pairs?

Even ID advocates have said there is no scientific evidence supporting ID. Anyone able to find one single scientific study supporting ID? Anyone?

Every life form on earth is related. We are all the same.

evloution is a hypothesis, that has been contradicted by evidence many times.


What is Science: observation, Repetition, conclusion that is all, no more no less
science looks a evidience, looks for patterns and then draws a conclusions from that data.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Even ID advocates have said there is no scientific evidence supporting ID. Anyone able to find one single scientific study supporting ID?

I think you're completely mistaken on Intelligent Design and what it is.

The ID movement basically states two facts that argue for the existence of an Intelligent Designer, not against evolution-

1. The universe is finely tuned and appears geared toward the generation of complex biological organisms and other forms of life. This implies some sort of Intelligent Designer.

2. The universe is irreducibly complex and requires an Intelligent Designer to maintain the processes.

I think these two statements are mutually contradictory. If the universe is so finely tuned (1), then why do we need to insert God into the gaps (2)?

I disagree with the ID movement, but I don't think it really claims to be science anyway. It's a philosophical movement based on the teleological argument for the existence of God that goes back to Aristotle.

 

[lopez23]

I don't think that using only one design means that God wasn't the creator or whatever you are trying to say. I don't think it means He wasn't creative either.

I mean... for every positive, there will be a negative. Why didn't God make our muscles bigger? We'd be better workers, we'd be more capable of dealing with nature, and so on. We wouldn't be as transportable though. We would need more material to build cars and planes and bikes or whatever. The earth can only supply so much. We would consume more food. Why didn't God make us not require food? In that case, why not air? Why didn't God just create us without a need for anything? Why didn't He make us immortal? We wouldn't love Him for one. He wanted to give us freewill to choose to love Him, He didn't want a Heaven yet.

There is always a negative. Only one set of instructions for all life on earth? God has His ways of doing things. They are higher then ours anyway. Shouldn't worry about it.



And I would suppose you are an evolutionist? Well... that isn't science either. Science is the study of observations. What observations have you made about evolution? I haven't seen any in my backyard.

Peace

I can see evidence of evolution basically everywhere I look. Study genetics or any biology and you see that everything is built from the same molecules. We all originated in stars.

Examine 2 different species of trees in your backyard. Why would anything intelligent and omniscient create even 2 different trees to do the exact same thing. You would think he would have perfected the art and just left one standing. No real reason to keep the other alive and surviving unless it serves a different purpose.

Evolution is evident everywhere you look, you have just been blinded by the bible and the church.

Evolution is science. There is tons of substantiating evidence supporting it.

Life is about survival and procreation. If you die your genes are gone forever. Life is simply a vehicle to transport your genes to the next generation.

God didnt create us. He didnt even mean to make us; we are a product of evolution. No intelligence would make humans. No omniscient creator would knowingly create a form of life that kills everything it comes into contact with. Take a look at your own behavior and then study the behavior of gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, or any ape or simian. Our behaviors are very similar.

Humans wage war in the name of god. How godly is that. We use gods name as a facade for the true reasons behind most wars. We use god to take away peoples land. Everything is given to us by god according to some peoples logic. God doesnt care if you live or die. Humanity is so minute compared to the grander scheme of things that its ridiculous to even assume god knows who you are.

Even god himself kills first born children though, at least the god of the bible. Sounds like a rather hypocritical and angry god doesnt it.

 

[lopez23]

I think you're completely mistaken on Intelligent Design and what it is.

The ID movement basically states two facts that argue for the existence of an Intelligent Designer, not against evolution-

1. The universe is finely tuned and appears geared toward the generation of complex biological organisms and other forms of life. This implies some sort of Intelligent Designer.

2. The universe is irreducibly complex and requires an Intelligent Designer to maintain the processes.

I think these two statements are mutually contradictory. If the universe is so finely tuned (1), then why do we need to insert God into the gaps (2)?

I disagree with the ID movement, but I don't think it really claims to be science anyway. It's a philosophical movement based on the teleological argument for the existence of God that goes back to Aristotle.

No the problem is that people think ID is science. They base this claim on genesis and the word of the bible. They are mainly arguing that the bible has a place in science class. They base their creationistic beleifs in intelligent design, because the bible says god "poofed" the world into existence.

 

[imind]

And I would suppose you are an evolutionist? Well... that isn't science either. Science is the study of observations. What observations have you made about evolution? I haven't seen any in my backyard.

so, now science is only the observations made by you and lopez23. i thought it was the observations of others, who have, in fact, observed evolution.

 

[imind]

double post

 

[Voegelin]

Nm

 

[Mallon]

Yeesh. I don't think you're going to win anyone over by telling them they've been "blinded by the Bible," lopez23. Shoving evolution down people's throats works no better than showing creationism down people's throats.
Moreover, I question whether you are even in the right forum. This is a Christians-only forum, and normally I wouldn't suspect peoples' Christianity, but your statements in post#5 make me wonder...
I disagree wholeheartedly with ID; it is both poor science and dangerous philosophy. But I disagree even more with your saying things like, "God didnt create us."
If you want to discuss the role of God in evolution or the pitfalls of IDism, let's do it. But let's keep it civil, too.

 

[Tonks]

Moving this thread from Christian Current Affairs to Origins Theology as it fits better there.

 

[Adoniram]

ID is not science

Neither is creationism. All ID and christian creationism say is that god can magically call things into existence whenever he feels like it. That is your premise in believing in creationism and ID. God snaps his metaphysical fingers and goes "poof" whenever he feels like it.

Now if god can do this why wasn't he slighlty more creative? I mean he has the power of the universe at his hand, yet can only come up with one basic set of instructions for all life on earth>>>DNA, RNA,proteins.

Why is all life on earth related? How come you can look at the dna of a chimpanzee and human and get a 98% correlation in base pairs?

Even ID advocates have said there is no scientific evidence supporting ID. Anyone able to find one single scientific study supporting ID? Anyone?

Every life form on earth is related. We are all the same.

Frankly, there is no difference in "how" ID proponents and evolution proponents study the evidence, or in the evidence they study. The difference lies in how they interpret the evidence and what conclusions they reach. So you are saying that because the research of ID proponents leads them to a different conclusion, it's not scientific. That's a very preposterous statement.

"why wasn't he slighlty more creative?" I can't really say. Why are houses all the same? They all have bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens, bathrooms, windows, doors, etc., etc. Where is the creativity? Why are all cars the same? They all have engines, bodies, seats, steering wheels, tires, etc., etc. What's creative about that? The fact is that all designs consist of common basic building blocks, even down to the microscopic level.

I think God actually did a pretty good job of creating diversity using the same basic building blocks.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" Rom. 1:20

 

[Mallon]

So you are saying that because the research of ID proponents leads them to a different conclusion, it's not scientific. That's a very preposterous statement.

No, it's the appeal to magic that makes ID unscientific.
That, and the fact that no IC system put forth by ID advocates has withstood scrutiny.

 

[Adoniram]

No, it's the appeal to magic that makes ID unscientific.
That, and the fact that no IC system put forth by ID advocates has withstood scrutiny.

Yes, yes, well that's what people say about ID. Funny how the same people would look at a house and reach the reasonable conclusion that someone designed it, even though they couldn't tell you who. No magic in that, huh.

On the other hand, the creative processes of the fellow's mind that produced the design might be considered by some to be magic, as could be the art that flowed out of that mind.

Like I said, the study leading to the conclusion is as scientific as any other study in any other discipline. It is merely the conclusion that upsets people.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, yes, well that's what people say about ID. Funny how the same people would look at a house and reach the reasonable conclusion that someone designed it, even though they couldn't tell you who. No magic in that, huh.

Houses aren't imperfect replicators. Bad analogy.

Like I said, the study leading to the conclusion is as scientific as any other study in any other discipline. It is merely the conclusion that upsets people.

Right. Because in science, we cannot conclude that "magic happened."
Example:
Q: "Why does hydrogen burn colourless?"
A: "Because God made it that way."
Appeal to the supernatural is ad hoc, untestable, and thus, unscientific. That is why ID is not science. And it makes for dangerous god-of-the-gaps theology, too.
You can draw all the conclusions you like about flagella, blood-clotting systems, or the human eye. But if it involves any sort of supernaturalism, it isn't science.

 

[lopez23]

Frankly, there is no difference in "how" ID proponents and evolution proponents study the evidence, or in the evidence they study. The difference lies in how they interpret the evidence and what conclusions they reach. So you are saying that because the research of ID proponents leads them to a different conclusion, it's not scientific. That's a very preposterous statement.

There is no evidence for ID or creationism. NONE!!!!

Show me one scientific study supporting ID or creationism. You will not find one peer reviewed study in any scientific journal.

There is no research into ID. The only way to prove ID is by proving the existence of god or a higher power of some kind, which no one can do.

As soon as you find the creator you have found god and every religion will give up their own quest to find the perfect salvation.

 

[Smilebomb]

There is no evidence for ID or creationism. NONE!!!!

Show me one scientific study supporting ID or creationism. You will not find one peer reviewed study in any scientific journal.

There is no research into ID. The only way to prove ID is by proving the existence of god or a higher power of some kind, which no one can do.

As soon as you find the creator you have found god and every religion will give up their own quest to find the perfect salvation.

No one can prove God exists?

Well I guess that comes down to you defining what God, prove, and exist mean...

If by God you mean the Christian/Jewish God of the Bible, then sadly no... He can't be proven.

If by god you mean a god, a supreme being/force, something outside time, then that most certainly can be proven. It's called the kalam argument.

Peace

 

[Smilebomb]

But if it involves any sort of supernaturalism, it isn't science.

Just a though, but to me... it sounds more like science is limited rather then God?

Peace

 

[KerrMetric]

The kalam argument is flawed. To claim it "proves" a supreme being is ridiculous.

 

[Mallon]

If by god you mean a god, a supreme being/force, something outside time, then that most certainly can be proven. It's called the kalam argument.

The Kalam cosmological argument is just that -- an argument. It is not "proof" of God.

Just a though, but to me... it sounds more like science is limited rather then God?

You bet! Science is limited to explaining phenomena via natural mechanisms. That is both its strength and weakness.

For those who think IC systems are evidence of God, does that imply that non-IC systems were not designed by God? What about obviously flawed designs like the human eye, wisdom teeth, or spine?