|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,828 Year: 4,085/9,624 Month: 956/974 Week: 283/286 Day: 4/40 Hour: 0/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What I gleaned from that is that it’s still possible that there is a less-than-strictly-omnipotent designer out there, who may still be able to do what we can’t yet understand, and may appear to us to be all-powerful, but who is actually restricted by the laws of nature into producing a less-than-perfect world (perhaps even by evolution: let’s not make this thread into a creation-vs-evolution dichotomy). The designer might be an apprentice, working on a class project (and doing poorly). The evidence for this scenario is at least as good, if not better, than it is for any other scenario describing a designer. Edited by Coyote, : Grammar Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Hi, Coyote.
Coyote writes: The designer might be an apprentice, working on a class project (and doing poorly). I was going to say that myself, but I thought it would be too sarcastic coming from the guy who's supposed to be leading the discussion. It's one of my favorite ID stories. It is also the theme of Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice, 1984. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Organisms change because they were designed to do so in the first place, along with the enviornment they exist in. Natural selection is wonderful, isn't it? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
To return to the topic:
Concepts thoughts or ideas only become real or demonstratable when compared against a verfiable physical reality, they exhibit certain characteristics which coorbortate very real possibities and conclusions from our deductive reasoning processes. When I conduct an experiment iin the physical world, the results of that experiment will corroborate my conclusions or it will not. And that is why ID has failed. Most statements about ID are simply unsubstantiated beliefs, devoid of any science content. The "designer" statements fall into this category. There is no scientific evidence for a designer, let alone evidence to establish the designer's history, characteristics, methods, and goals. All statements regarding these, of which there are many, stem from religious belief, not science. This was established "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law (Dover). The few ID statements actually relating to the physical world and physical evidence (e.g., Behe's irreducible complexity) have been easily falsified. This leaves ID as a religious idea which as failed to establish any connection to, or support from, the physical evidence--that which is dealt with by science. It has lots of proponents among the religious though, and from creation "science." And the major proponents of this belief are at the Discovery Institute--which is staffed by lawyers, PR flacks and other true believers, rather than by scientists. (Let me know when they actually make a discovery beyond the words of wisdom generally, but incorrectly, attributed to P.T. Barnum.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
We are not all created by God; none of us alive today or yesterday or last year or last month, last century, last millennium etc have been created by God; not even Noah. One man, Adam, was created by God. All others have procreated from Adam without God designing or creating each. God's creative work on humans and the species ended on day six of Genesis one. Thus the sabbath rest as God rested on the seventh day. And where in the scientific literature did you find that? Or are you just preaching your particular religious belief in the Science Forum? And in the guise of science? (I thought Intelligent Design was supposed to be science! You've just given the whole sordid scheme away with your preaching.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Just a simple question.
In a thread dealing with "Intelligent Design" how is it that you are posting so much about religious belief? I haven't followed the whole thread, but I pop into a thread in "Science Forums" and in "Intelligent Design" subforum and find nothing but statements regarding religious belief. Is this all that intelligent design really is? Religion in disguise? If not, how is it that the proponents of intelligent design always seem to fall back upon religious belief as their support? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sadly, it would seem that many people are attracted to the label of intelligent design without fully understanding what it means.
Unless it can be shown otherwise, the evidence suggests that intelligent design is an evolution of creation "science" designed to get around the U.S. Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard. One of the best examples of this is the book Of Pandas and People and their famous cdesign proponentsists. In reality, there is no scientific study of intelligent design. It is a religious Trojan horse "designed" to get creationism back into the schools after being booted out by the courts. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The reason I cited Of Pandas and People is the following (this is the textbook going through editions and revisions):
quote: Note that these last two versions span the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court banning creation "science" in schools. That is what led to the invention of "intelligent design." This is a clear case of a creationist text being cut-and-pasted, changing "creationists" to "design proponents" -- except for the one place they missed and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists." So yes, I believe that intelligent design was invented to masquerade its religious background, and to replace creation "science" after it was banned by the court. If you want more documentation, look back at the history of "intelligent design" and see where it began to be widely used -- in relation to the Edwards v. Aguillard decision. It seems pretty dishonest doesn't it? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Dare to bet on this one??? Using what as the criterion? Creation "science" -- the exact opposite of science? Or real science? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The thread is about the creator - And if that's religious to you then that is the way it is.
The thread is about intelligent design, supposedly a branch of science. Why are you interjecting the supernatural into what is otherwise a naturalistic field of study? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Even the bible says it is impossible to know the ways of the universal creator from start to finish. Like measuring and never getting to the end just to get a final reading.
So? Intelligent design is supposed to be science. What does that have to do with ancient religious texts? (You didn't get the memo! ID is supposed to be science, not religion. You are supposed to pretend that the bible has no role in ID, nor does any other scripture or religious belief. We all know that's not true, but you have to pretend it is in order to help ID sneak back into the schools in the guise of science!) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You just can't see so you think I am the blind one.
Nope, I can see just fine. I can see intelligent design as a subterfuge, a lie, "designed" to sneak creationism back into the schools. I can see the lack of scientific evidence presented to support intelligent design. The main proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute is staffed with PR flacks and lawyers, not research scientists. They are trying to convince state legislators and school boards, not scientists. They are waging a PR campaign, not a scientific investigation. And I can see the "designer" as a code-name for the Christian deity. Any other suggestion is sure to meet opposition from those pushing ID, as this is all about religion--and their particular religion--not science. Nope, Tony, I can see just fine. And I can sniff out dishonesty and junk science just fine too. But thanks for playing. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So to sum it up, there is TONS of evidence of intelligent design.
There is not. There are a variety of claims that have been made, the most notable being irreducible complexity. That has been blown out of the water everywhere it has been proposed. Not one example has been shown, upon examination, to actually be "irreducible complex." What we have are claims of design--by the thousand, but no demonstrable method of detecting design. Face it, ID and IC are religious beliefs cloaked in the terminology of science. They have not employed the scientific method, rather they are derived from religious beliefs! They are pure religious apologetics. Until you can come up with some science, ID and IC are going nowhere except among fundamentalists--who believe without resort to evidence. So how about producing some scientific evidence? If there's TONS of evidence, lets have some, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In other words, all of this intelligent design nonsense isn't science, its just shilling for the Christian version of a deity--with a half-hearted attempt to pretend to be science.
Because your post has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religious apologetics. Who are you trying to fool? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled. There needs to be some smart programming instructions with enough intelligence built into the code, to automatically self-assemble with the use of bio-machinery already there waiting for instructions.
"Life only comes from life" has not been scientifically documented. It appears that it is a religious belief rather than a scientific finding.This is what is meant by life only comes from life. So I ask--what makes you think that a gradual assembly of molecules can't produce life? We have evidence that life arose some billions of years ago. Please specify the exact reason(s) that this could not have happened due to natural causes. And please, leave your religious beliefs for some other forum. This is the Science Forum. (See tagline.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024