Intelligent Design Is Only Theorized

[AirPo]

:

Primarily those who proposed it.

Secondarily those who believe it.

Intelligent Design is Satan's cheap imitation for Creationism.

We call that diabolical plagiarism.

In others words, a scam.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, a scam.

In others words, a scam.

Is everything a scam to you?

 

[AirPo]

Is everything a scam to you?

Nope, just the scams.

 

[Vaccine]

Primarily those who proposed it.

Secondarily those who believe it.

Intelligent Design is Satan's cheap imitation for Creationism.

We call that diabolical plagiarism.

Calling people names will hardly convince them Jesus is our Lord. I thought we were to reason together, that without love we are but the banging of a gong. Calling your brother in Christ an idiot?
Well, if it's satans cheap imitation, I'm all ears. Enlighten me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm all ears.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Enlighten me.

Sure.

Explain this please: cdesign proponentsists

... and we'll see how 'all ears' you are.

 

[Speedwell]

Calling people names will hardly convince them Jesus is our Lord. I thought we were to reason together, that without love we are but the banging of a gong. Calling your brother in Christ an idiot?
Well, if it's satans cheap imitation, I'm all ears. Enlighten me.

Intelligent Design is the creature of the Discovery Institute, a group of militant Calvinists who proclaimed it to be the "wedge" by which they would further their political agenda. It was to be a Trojan Horse for introducing biblical creationism into the schools leading to the indoctrination of children, preparing them for the imposition of a totalitarian theocracy. And if you think that's a paranoid fantasy, all you have to do to dispel the notion is to read the Discovery Institute's own work, starting with the Wedge Document and finishing with The Institutes of Biblical Law in which the totalitarian state they dream of is particularly described.

 

[Jimmy D]

When you employ tactics like saying they want to impose it on unwilling, appealing to a judge to say it isn't science, and mischarachterizing it as creationism you're relying on that rock to declare victory. Why not face it on a level playing field and try and discredit it on scientific grounds? I give kodos to Ken Miller for at least trying.

Newsflash.... it's been discredted on scientific grounds. As for mischaracterizing it as creationionism have you not heard of cdesignproponentsists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I'm Genghis Khan.Sure.

Explain this please: cdesign proponentsists

... and we'll see how 'all ears' you are.

Holy Cow!! For once AV used a sarcastic phrase properly!

Good one, AV.

 

[Vaccine]

And I'm Genghis Khan.Sure.

Explain this please: cdesign proponentsists

... and we'll see how 'all ears' you are.

Asking me to explain something from the NCSE on intelligent design theory is like askind a creationist to explain something about the bible posted on reddit. Have you read what the NCSE says about Noah's ark, the flood and other creationist ideas? I hope you don't base what you think about ID based on its critics.
But since this myth perpetuates, the book that they used word to copy/paste creator for designer states it is a philosophy book, not a science textbook. I haven't read it so it may well be satans substitution for creationism you mentioned. Then again, I haven't read it so I'll reserve judgement.
Secondly, Steven Meyer was using the term intelligent design in biology three months before the Edwards case. Intelligent design theory is a scientific concept proposed people like Meyer, Behe, and Dembski.
Of pandas and people/creation biology was some form of creationism, which as you know is philosopy. ID is a theory, which I'm sure you know, theories are a part of empirical science. Equivocating a book of philosophy and a scientific theory is a bad idea.

 

[Vaccine]

Intelligent Design is the creature of the Discovery Institute, a group of militant Calvinists who proclaimed it to be the "wedge" by which they would further their political agenda. It was to be a Trojan Horse for introducing biblical creationism into the schools leading to the indoctrination of children, preparing them for the imposition of a totalitarian theocracy. And if you think that's a paranoid fantasy, all you have to do to dispel the notion is to read the Discovery Institute's own work, starting with the Wedge Document and finishing with The Institutes of Biblical Law in which the totalitarian state they dream of is particularly described.

The idea was to find out more about the theory, then come up with a more accurate criticism. SFS is obnoxious but at least he does make some informed posts. Here's their policy:
As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.
If your only source is its critics you will continually be misinformed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Asking me to explain something from the NCSE on intelligent design theory is like askind a creationist to explain something about the bible posted on reddit. Have you read what the NCSE says about Noah's ark, the flood and other creationist ideas? I hope you don't base what you think about ID based on its critics.
But since this myth perpetuates, the book that they used word to copy/paste creator for designer states it is a philosophy book, not a science textbook. I haven't read it so it may well be satans substitution for creationism you mentioned. Then again, I haven't read it so I'll reserve judgement.

You made several errors. First off there is no "intelligent design theory". You do not seem to know what a scientific theory is. Or you could show that I was wrong by answering this question: What reasonable test could show intelligent design theory to be wrong?

And of course the NCSE says there was no Noah's Ark. They have more than a middle school level of science education.

Secondly, Steven Meyer was using the term intelligent design in biology three months before the Edwards case. Intelligent design theory is a scientific concept proposed people like Meyer, Behe, and Dembski.

Yes, the ideas HAD to be in existence before the case. One cannot sue until after someone does something wrong. That is fairly obvious. And no, ID is not a scientific concept. See my question above.

Of pandas and people/creation biology was some form of creationism, which as you know is philosopy. ID is a theory, which I'm sure you know, theories are a part of empirical science. Equivocating a book of philosophy and a scientific theory is a bad idea.

NO, ID is not a theory. No matter how many times you repeat that error you will still be wrong. ID is just creationism in a stolen lab coat.

 

[Vaccine]

Newsflash.... it's been discredted on scientific grounds. As for mischaracterizing it as creationionism have you not heard of cdesignproponentsists?

Making up your mind without learning both sides of the issue isn't a good idea. The book they did the copy paste job stated it was about philosophy. Theories are part of science. So cdesign proponentsists and intelligent design theorists are not the same.
Behe's irreducible-complexity hasn't been refuted, but Matzke and Miller have:
"Based on our results, we suggest that genes of flagellum have diverged functionally as to specialize in the export of proteins from the bacterium to the host."
MBE

 

[HitchSlap]

Discuss please.

ID/creationism is washed up. What's do discuss?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Making up your mind without learning both sides of the issue isn't a good idea. The book they did the copy paste job stated it was about philosophy. Theories are part of science. So cdesign proponentsists and intelligent design theorists are not the same.
Behe's irreducible-complexity hasn't been refuted, but Matzke and Miller have:
"Based on our results, we suggest that genes of flagellum have diverged functionally as to specialize in the export of proteins from the bacterium to the host."
MBE

Behe's claims were refuted long ago. I could post a video for you again that shows that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is well understood. The video is a simplified version of a much more length paper that I could link for you and that is based upon over 200 different peer reviewed articles, links will be in the paper, that I will not bother linking for you.

Behe's strategy was to find problems that were only recently discovered and since there was no solution for them yet he would declare that they were unsolvable. Behe forgot that problems on the cutting edge of science are solved every day.

ETA: How does the article that you linked support you in any way at all?

 

[Vaccine]

You made several errors. First off there is no "intelligent design theory". You do not seem to know what a scientific theory is. Or you could show that I was wrong by answering this question: What reasonable test could show intelligent design theory to be wrong?

And of course the NCSE says there was no Noah's Ark. They have more than a middle school level of science education.



Yes, the ideas HAD to be in existence before the case. One cannot sue until after someone does something wrong. That is fairly obvious. And no, ID is not a scientific concept. See my question above.




NO, ID is not a theory. No matter how many times you repeat that error you will still be wrong. ID is just creationism in a stolen lab coat.

Behe proposed a way to falsify irreducible complexity. Take some non-motile bacteria, put them in an environment with pressure to evolve motility and see if they do.
I know a lot of people hope it will just go away. That if they can continually call it creationism it will majically disappear. The problem is the scientific community has higher standards than people on internet forums. Reasonable people are critically examining it and it will stand or fall on its own merit, not how people on the internet choose to define it. We can argue all we want, it has and will continue to appear in the literature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Behe proposed a way to falsify irreducible complexity. Take some non-motile bacteria, put them in an environment with pressure to evolve motility and see if they do.
I know a lot of people hope it will just go away. That if they can continually call it creationism it will majically disappear. The problem is the scientific community has higher standards than people on internet forums. Reasonable people are critically examining it and it will stand or fall on its own merit, not how people on the internet choose to define it. We can argue all we want, it has and will continue to appear in the literature.

That was not a reasonable test. It was a weak strawman of a test. One can't set artificial goals. Try again.

ETA: And as we all know, every example of "irreducible complexity" of Behe's that he has come up with has been falsified the last time that I checked.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Discuss please.

Hypothesized, really -- a theory at least has some sort of solid evidence in its support... ID is little more than speculation and assertion.

 

[bhsmte]

The idea was to find out more about the theory, then come up with a more accurate criticism. SFS is obnoxious but at least he does make some informed posts. Here's their policy:
As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.
If your only source is its critics you will continually be misinformed.

What theory?

 

[Loudmouth]

True it is only a theory. It's an inference to the best explanation, which isn't 100%, but it makes more sense than natural selection acting on random variations explaining the diversity of life.

Argument from common sense is a fallacy.

It doesn't seek to prove God either, there can't be any scientific proof of something immeasurable, infinite, and immaterial. It only seeks to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent causes. Intelligence, or gravity for that matter, isn't something that can be put in a test tube, we can only study it's effects.

Begging the question fallacy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Intelligent Design: a belief which attempts to compromise the conflicting accounts of the creation of living things between the Scriptures and evolution. With two accounts diametrically opposed to each other, one can be wrong or both can be wrong but both cannot be right. By taking the position that both right, ID disqualifies itself as a serious alternative. No verses of Scripture support ID, and no findings of science support it either.

ID/creationists tend to make our argument for us.

Have you ever noticed that ID/creationists try so hard to make the argument that evolution is not science, and that ID/creationism is science? This means that even ID/creationists agree that science holds more truth than religious belief. Otherwise, they would proudly declare that ID/creationism is purely a religious belief which makes it more trustworthy, but you never see them doing that, do you?

The whole creation science movement is a tacit admission that science does disprove religious belief.