ID is valid

[TheBandit]

On the matters of this group's opinion, evolution is no more of fact than Intelligent Design. Why shouldn't it be considered in schools. Its a matter of education, not religion. Intelligent design is a philosophical point of view that allows the student to consider other alternatives to how we originated. It not a matter of saying that God of the Bible created humans. It is saying that there is a higher authority that created things.

Science proves nothing when it comes to evolution (where are all the fossils of transitional species?). Why should it be considered relevant material to teach? Because it has been created through experimentation and observation?

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes intelligent design. It just is considered to be impossible. I believe that people who advocate for evolution and not intelligent design are just as biased as someone who says smoking doesn't kill. Why then refute intelligent design as impossible & religious.

To completely deny the relevance of intelligent design one must be:
A.) Completely ignorant concerning the complexities of the human body
B.) Completely ignorant on the processes of carbon and other forms of radiometric dating

 

[TheBear]

What exactly is ID?

Is ID falsifiable?

 

[IndyPirate]

What does radiometric dating have to do with ID?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

On the matters of this group's opinion, evolution is no more of fact than Intelligent Design. Why shouldn't it be considered in schools. Its a matter of education, not religion. Intelligent design is a philosophical point of view that allows the student to consider other alternatives to how we originated. It not a matter of saying that God of the Bible created humans. It is saying that there is a higher authority that created things.

Science proves nothing when it comes to evolution (where are all the fossils of transitional species?). Why should it be considered relevant material to teach? Because it has been created through experimentation and observation?

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes intelligent design. It just is considered to be impossible. I believe that people who advocate for evolution and not intelligent design are just as biased as someone who says smoking doesn't kill. Why then refute intelligent design as impossible & religious.

To completely deny the relevance of intelligent design one must be:
A.) Completely ignorant concerning the complexities of the human body
B.) Completely ignorant on the processes of carbon and other forms of radiometric dating

ID isn't science. Teach it anywhere you like, just not in the science classroom.

Your statements regarding evolution are sadly very, very wrong. It is one of the most well-supported scientific theories ever. It has ample evidence. It is valid science. All of this is why it is accepted overwhelmingly by the world's science community. Get ID accepted by scientists; then you'll have a case for getting it taught in science class.

 

[flatworm]

On the matters of this group's opinion, evolution is no more of fact than Intelligent Design. Why shouldn't it be considered in schools. Its a matter of education, not religion.

The Dover trial pretty much put the kibosh on that idea. Look behind the ID movement, and you find the same old creationists, using the same old arguments.

Intelligent design is a philosophical point of view that allows the student to consider other alternatives to how we originated. It not a matter of saying that God of the Bible created humans. It is saying that there is a higher authority that created things.

Which is still an inherently religious and not scientific concept.

Science proves nothing when it comes to evolution (where are all the fossils of transitional species?).

Has this never been posted before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Why should it be considered relevant material to teach?
Because it has been created through experimentation and observation?

Yes, that's certainly one reason. Another reason is that it has tremendous explanatory and predictive power. A third is that it has current real-world applications in medicine and biotechnology.

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes intelligent design.

That's because the idea is fundamentally untestable, hence unscientific.

It just is considered to be impossible.

It is not considered impossible- it is considered unscientific. It is untestable, holds no explanatory power and has no predictive ability. Invoking inscrutable supernatural agency is indistinguishable, in science, from giving up. There have been countless instances in the history of mankind's search for knowledge where people have thrown up their hands and decided this or that question was forever beyond the reach of empirical science. One by one natural explanations were found for those questions, leading us to realize that appealing to the supernatural is not an answer, but rather a refusal to investigate.

The supernatural has no place in science- not because of some prejudice on the part of scientists but because of its track record. Supernatural agency held pride of place in human epistemology for thousands of years, and in all that time advanced the human race not one iota. It's been tried, and it failed.

I believe that people who advocate for evolution and not intelligent design are just as biased as someone who says smoking doesn't kill.

Your belief is obviously not in any way based on reality.

Why then refute intelligent design as impossible & religious.

1) Because it is religious, as the statements of its proponents, the source of their funding, and their arguments all demonstrate.

2) Nobody is claiming it's impossible, but rather that it isn't science.

To completely deny the relevance of intelligent design one must be:
A.) Completely ignorant concerning the complexities of the human body

Evolution explains quite well how complexity can arise by natural means. What intelligent design demands we do is abandon any attempt to answer specific questions about various structures scientifically.

B.) Completely ignorant on the processes of carbon and other forms of radiometric dating

I have no idea what you mean by this at all. Why would carbon dating be relevant?

 

[Grizzly]

What exactly is ID?

Is ID falsifiable?

Great questions. Please answer. Please name one piece of evidence that, if found, would falsify ID.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Intelligent design is a philosophical point of view that allows the student to consider other alternatives to how we originated. It not a matter of saying that God of the Bible created humans. It is saying that there is a higher authority that created things.

So teach it in philosophy class then, not science class.

Why should it be considered relevant material to teach? Because it has been created through experimentation and observation?

Because evolution is a useful science with real world application (yes, even common descent has application).

B.) Completely ignorant on the processes of carbon and other forms of radiometric dating

Huh? This is just random.

 

[plindboe]

Why shouldn't it be considered in schools. Its a matter of education, not religion.

It's a matter of what constitutes science and what doesn't.

As I wrote in this thread:

----------------------------------------------
the TOE is the only scientific theory that explains biodiversity. If there was a valid alternative, supported by the same amount of evidence, it would indeed deserve equal time. But there just isn't. ID is as far from science as it gets. It's untestable, unfalsifiable, unevidenced, subjective speculation and it's proposed in a fallacious manner (i.e. argument from ignorance and false dichotomy). There's no scientific work done using ID, there's only an effective propaganda machinery that strives to increase public pressure on politicians to force it into science class. This cartoon illustrates the issue quite nicely:

----------------------------------------------

Intelligent design is a philosophical point of view that allows the student to consider other alternatives to how we originated.

Why on Earth do you want to teach what you see as philosophy in science class?

It not a matter of saying that God of the Bible created humans. It is saying that there is a higher authority that created things.

Based on what evidence? Higher authority-of-the-gaps?

Science proves nothing when it comes to evolution (where are all the fossils of transitional species?).

In museums and such. Here's a short list of transitional fossils that have so far been found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Peter

 

[ranmaonehalf]

On the matters of this group's opinion, evolution is no more of fact than Intelligent Design. Why shouldn't it be considered in schools. Its a matter of education, not religion. Intelligent design is a philosophical point of view that allows the student to consider other alternatives to how we originated. It not a matter of saying that God of the Bible created humans. It is saying that there is a higher authority that created things.

Science proves nothing when it comes to evolution (where are all the fossils of transitional species?). Why should it be considered relevant material to teach? Because it has been created through experimentation and observation?

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes intelligent design. It just is considered to be impossible. I believe that people who advocate for evolution and not intelligent design are just as biased as someone who says smoking doesn't kill. Why then refute intelligent design as impossible & religious.

To completely deny the relevance of intelligent design one must be:
A.) Completely ignorant concerning the complexities of the human body
B.) Completely ignorant on the processes of carbon and other forms of radiometric dating

judging by the low post count im going with poe. (not nutball crazzy SoF poe, but newbie Poe)

 

[The Nihilist]

judging by the low post count im going with poe. (not nutball crazzy SoF poe, but newbie Poe)

this seems most likely

 

[Washington]

On the matters of this group's opinion, evolution is no more of fact than Intelligent Design. Why shouldn't it be considered in schools. Its a matter of education, not religion. Intelligent design is a philosophical point of view that allows the student to consider other alternatives to how we originated. It not a matter of saying that God of the Bible created humans. It is saying that there is a higher authority that created things.

Science proves nothing when it comes to evolution (where are all the fossils of transitional species?). Why should it be considered relevant material to teach? Because it has been created through experimentation and observation?

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes intelligent design. It just is considered to be impossible. I believe that people who advocate for evolution and not intelligent design are just as biased as someone who says smoking doesn't kill. Why then refute intelligent design as impossible & religious.

To completely deny the relevance of intelligent design one must be:
A.) Completely ignorant concerning the complexities of the human body
B.) Completely ignorant on the processes of carbon and other forms of radiometric dating

At the recent Dover trial the ID movement had every opportunity to prove itself a valid science. Even Michael Behe, ID's leading proponent who coined the term "irreducible complexity" testified. And what was the conclusion? In the words of the presiding judge John E. Jones---a Bush appointee:

"In addition to the IDM [intelligent design movement] itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID’s religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition.
(p 29)
​

The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic hange from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. (p 33)​

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (p 43)​

source​

Science classes are no place for religious views and non-scientific theories.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science proves nothing when it comes to evolution (where are all the fossils of transitional species?).

Science proves nothing, period. Proof is for math and alcohol. Science produces theories that explain the evidence at hand, theories that make testable predictions, and theories that are falsifiable. ID is not a theory, therefore it is not a part of science.

Why should it be considered relevant material to teach? Because it has been created through experimentation and observation?

Examples? I have never heard of a scientist observing a supernatural designer poofing animals into being. Have you?

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes intelligent design.

What would refute intelligent design?

I believe that people who advocate for evolution and not intelligent design are just as biased as someone who says smoking doesn't kill.

The smoking deniers are on your side of the aisle, not ours. We are not the ones ignoring mountains of scientific studies that demonstrate and apply evolution. Go to www.pubmed.com . Search for Intelligent Design. Not much there. Now search for "evolution". Looky there, 200,000 papers. Search for "phylogenomics" and "comparative genomics". Quite a few papers there as well dealing with the direct application of evolution.

To completely deny the relevance of intelligent design one must be:
A.) Completely ignorant concerning the complexities of the human body

How does complexity indicate intelligent design?

B.) Completely ignorant on the processes of carbon and other forms of radiometric dating

Again, the ignorance seems to be on your side of the aisle. As reading material, I would strongly suggest this website: http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm

 

[Grizzly]

I believe the heart of the matter is that ID is not science. It generates no falsifiable predictions (that I can think of). In this regard, its even less of a science than YEC. At least YEC generates falsifiable predictions.

 

[Morcova]

A post and run?

 

[Soul Searcher]

Seems like the letters "in" are missing from the OP title. as in

ID is invalid

 

[Morcova]

He'll be here all night folks! Tip your waitress!

 

[LittleNipper]

Seems like the letters "in" are missing from the OP title. as in

ID is invalid

I would suggest to you that symmetry itself is a sign of design. There really isn't any other logical reason that in most species one side mirrors the otherside, and interestingly that is not so very true of the internal workings which usually remain hidden.

 

[Grizzly]

I would suggest to you that symmetry itself is a sign of design. There really isn't any other logical reason that in most species one side mirrors the otherside, and interestingly that is not so very true of the internal workings which usually remain hidden.

so does that mean if we find signs of asymetry, this would disprove ID?

 

[Allegory]

Your ideas are stupid and so is everything you stand for.

 

[Allegory]

What about supersymmetry?