Watch and consider V (hillarious)

[bhsmte]

Every cause has those that make it look bad. ID is an obvious fact regardless.

Facts can be demonstrated.

 

[Speedwell]

Every cause has those that make it look bad. ID is an obvious fact regardless.

I don't know that it's "obvious." ID proponents have not successfully defined "design" nor offered any test for it's presence, nor have they suggested any mechanism by which the "design" finds it's way into the designed object. In fact, ID proponents don't seem to concern themselves with refining their own model, but spend their time trying to refute evolution.

 

[pitabread]

ID is an obvious fact regardless.

When it comes to human creations, sure. When it comes to nature, not so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every cause has those that make it look bad. ID is an obvious fact regardless.

Nope, ID is psuedoscience at best.

If it was a fact you would think that you could find scientific evidence for the concept. They tried that early on and all of those claims were refuted. Or have you forgotten "irreducible complexity"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope, ID is psuedoscience at best.

If it was a fact you would think that you could find scientific evidence for the concept. They tried that early on and all of those claims were refuted. Or have you forgotten "irreducible complexity"?

I don't think redefining a mousetrap with parts missing as a tie clasp debunks irreducible complexity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't know that it's "obvious." ID proponents have not successfully defined "design" nor offered any test for it's presence, nor have they suggested any mechanism by which the "design" finds it's way into the designed object. In fact, ID proponents don't seem to concern themselves with refining their own model, but spend their time trying to refute evolution.

Something that's obvious doesn't need a test.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think redefining a mousetrap with parts missing as a tie clasp debunks irreducible complexity.

LOL.

I would read the transcripts of Dr. Behe at the Dover trial, when he had to answer some tough questions about ID. It may be painful, but it is reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Something that's obvious doesn't need a test.

Simply stating something is obvious, just doesn't get it done. It is comforting I know, but falls short.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When it comes to human creations, sure. When it comes to nature, not so much.

I think you're asking a lot of evolution. Intricate systems found in nature don't just happen through evolutionary trial and error.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Simply stating something is obvious, just doesn't get it done. It is comforting I know, but falls short.

Observing, then stating.

 

[bhsmte]

Observing, then stating.

Observation based on what evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

I think you're asking a lot of evolution. Creation is much easier to understand.

Of course creation is easier to understand, especially for those who need to believe it, to protect their faith belief.

Easier to understand, does not equal reality.

 

[Speedwell]

Something that's obvious doesn't need a test.

So it's obvious that some biological structures are "designed" even though evolution is capable of producing them, and we don't need to know exactly what "design" is or how it gets into the structure?

If that is all there is to ID then there is no reason to pay any attention to it at all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So it's obvious that some biological structures are "designed" even though evolution is capable of producing them, and we don't know exactly what "design" is or how it gets into the structure?

If that is all there is to ID then there is no reason to pay any attention to it at all.

Then don't. I have some practical beliefs that work great for me that are foolishness to others. Maybe ID/creation is one of them.

If we don't know exactly what design is why all the fuss. Design is then in the eye of the beholder isn't it? If evolutionists 'don't know' what they're looking at why impute the same doubt to those who do?

 

[Speedwell]

Then don't. I have some practical beliefs that work great for me that are foolishness to others. Maybe ID/creation is one of them.

Except that because of the deficiencies which have been pointed out, ID can have no practical applications. That's fine, if you want to believe it anyway, but the discussion is not at its base about whether you believe it--it's a free country, we can all believe what we like. The question is, must we teach it in public school science classes in place of real science?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except that because of the deficiencies which have been pointed out, ID can have no practical applications. That's fine, if you want to believe it anyway, but the discussion is not at its base about whether you believe it--it's a free country, we can all believe what we like. The question is, must we teach it in public school science classes in place of real science?

Why not. It couldn't possibly be worse than what is being taught already. Recall that our educational system is largely responsible for the screwy way people think.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not. It couldn't possibly be worse than what is being taught already. Recall that our educational system is largely responsible for the screwy way people think.

I don't follow you; you'll have to expand on that some. How is teaching pseudoscience better than teaching real science, even if it is taught badly?

 

[pitabread]

I think you're asking a lot of evolution. Intricate systems found in nature don't just happen through evolutionary trial and error.

The empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't follow you; you'll have to expand on that some. How is teaching pseudoscience better than teaching real science, even if it is taught badly?

Science is such a small part of the general curriculum that it's largely irrelevant. It's almost a red herring.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

The only reason evolution theory persists is because it hasn't been debunked.......yet. It's like a long-standing record in sports. It becomes the stuff of legend.

 

[pitabread]

The only reason evolution theory persists is because it hasn't been debunked.......yet. It's like a long-standing record in sports. It becomes the stuff of legend.

Evolution is an applied science in various fields of applied biology. That, coupled with being the only scientific theory that currently explains the biodiversity of life on Earth, I don't think it's going away any time soon.