Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?

You have so many errors and misinterpretations in your post that it is not even worth responding to.But let me ask, why do the ID proponents keep referring to their particular religion and deities? I thought ID was supposed to be pure science. (Or didn't you get the memo?)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

and creation & ID is pure MYTHOLOGY & SUPERSTITION!!!!! which is not was science attempt to do, simply find out the most logical solution to anything not some mystical BS.Edited by bluescat48, : added sentence

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

But you'll respond anyway right? Thought so. If you're referring to the use of the word God, it's a general term for any monotheistic diety. We can't give God a name because we can't comprehend him.Well Coyote, I hope you wear a hat when you're out in the sun all day digging with a paint brush, doing your science, because that sun can get very intense.Question:  As far a pure science is concerned, what would an archaeologist know?Answer:  Nothing. We all have mythical and spiritual understanding, it's part of the human condition. Thing is, some, especially certain scientists, prefer to ignore it. Another of the words evolutionist tend to overuse; LogicLogic has no place in evolutionary theory, it's a formal structure belonging in the real sciences.Edited by LucyTheApe, : Format

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal

My impression is that you have no pretense that intelligent design is part of science. If that is the case, you shouldn't be involved in this specific topic and probably shouldn't be involved anywhere in the "Intelligent Design" forum.One response from Lucy the Ape is welcome. All others should not respond to this message.Adminnemooseus

---

So what is real science and if logic is why isn't evolution?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

I write: Lucy writes: Wich is exactly the point I'm making. Those things I mentioned, when given the right context, ALL could've created Life, the Universe and Everything.If I was convinced Evolution isn't true, then how would you convince me that it is indeed ID that offers the right solution, instead of say.... The "theory" of talking, yet very unintelligent bat winged pigeons?ABE: and then Since there is "evidence" for creation everywhere, does that mean it's not real science as you said just one paragraph earlier?But fine, let's deal with cold hard facts. Point me to a "cold hard fact" that undeniably points to ID as the correct theory. Cold hard facts should not be able to be interpretted in more than one way should they? So if you point out these facts, I think you will indeed have won your case, I await with great anticipation.Edited by Huntard, : added a bit to the messageEdited by Huntard, : spellings

No Adminnemooseus, wrong impression. Intelligent design and Creationism fall outside the realm of science, so does evolution. The only reason the concept of an Intelligent Designer is necessary is because we have Heathens trying to remove the significance of life, and the hope promised to our children.Science (or what I call real science) is a subset of reality, a limited set of tools and understanding, and as such cannot provide solutions which lay outside its scope.But I assume that you believe ID isn't science.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal

Evolution IS science. And it is even backed up by mountains of evidence.Evolution is actually a fact, change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.Around this fact, we build a theory explaining the diversity of life on earth. This theory is not just something some biologist pulled out his ass, the theory has been slowly evolving over the past hundred years, as we found more fossils, discovered DNA and so much more And facts can be evidence towards something.
More importantly.. what group? Im not part of any group who banters the word evidence around. Im not an evolutionist, im not a gravitist, im not a theres-no-santa-on-the-nortpolist.Im just sane.

If you'd like to have a discussion about whether ID, creationism and evolution are science, then you should propose a new thread. This thread's topic is about the evidence for ID. In other words, if evidence for ID is not what you want to talk about then you shouldn't be posting here.More generally, you're not posting anything about the topic, and this recent pattern of ID and creationism advocates criticizing evolution in threads about ID and creationism has gone beyond being tiresome. You come into threads like this and post one off-topic message after another about the supposed problems with evolution, and for the most part the evolutionists don't respond because they know it's off-topic, but I'm beginning to think this pattern isn't ignorance but brilliance, a way to without opposition make your points against evolution over and over again.It's important for board moderation to not overreact by making any permanent policy changes. It is frequently the case that this week's hot issue quickly becomes a non-issue as time goes by. But for whatever reason you and Bertot and Beretta are all at the same time posting off-topic criticisms of evolution over and over again that anyone following the Forum Guidelines cannot respond to, so I think board moderation has to get a little stricter for a little while so that this stops.The forums are divided into topics. If you want a place where all topics are mashed together into a single thread then go to Yahoo Groups, but here at EvC Forum please stay on topic.Of course, I'm just a participant in this thread and will take no moderator actions myself, and there's no guarantee that other moderators will agree with me, but at a minimum take this as a plea to please, please, please get on-topic.--Percy

Firstly it is worth pointing out that the vast majority of theists in the world also accept evolutionary theory based on this same evidence..............
More importantly, this continual assertion that any scientific theory as established and evidenced as evolution could possibly be just a subjectively derived interpretation of facts in the way that ID so obviously is, needs to be quashed. This is just not how real science works.TESTING THEORIES
Evolutionary theory has been repeatedly tested by prediction against observation. Evolutionary theory has repeatedly been verified by this most objective method of testing available. In doing so evolutionary theory has led directly and demonstrably to the discovery of new evidence.Prediction and discovery. The hallmarks of objective positive scientific evidence. If ID/creationism is even as vaguely well evidenced as Evolution why is it -

That ID has never made a single verifiable positive prediction that can distinguish it from evolutionary theory?

That ID has never ever once led to the discovery of any new evidence or observable physical phenomenon?

​

A supposedly large scale and all encompassing scientific theory that has never ever ever resulted in a single prediction or discovery. Not once. It baffles me how anyone can possibly seriously advocate such a thing.

​

There quite obviously is no scientific evidence for ID at all.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That is an absolutely false statement.But, it seems to be the latest talking point promulgated by fundamentalists in an effort to feel better about their religious beliefs.The process goes something like this: "Science does some wonderful things. But evolution contradicts my religious beliefs. Therefore evolution is not a science."Nice work if you can get it. But it is self-delusion of the basest sort. Reminds me of a good line...

Edit to add: Whoops. OK, no more off-topic posts. Sorry.Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

bluegenes writes, We Creationists will never be able to prove any ID arguments to evolutionists because evolutionists are convinced beyond any doubt that not only did millions of life forms suddenly spring forth at the beginning of the Cambrian period due to mutation and natural selection, "it certainly did" according to their definition of science.Their definition of ToE science does not have to prove anything from start to finish to any high degree of accuracy. All it has to do is line up a number of similar fossils, and then show how some current life forms can somehow change some of their characteristics, and wala, the ToE is thereby proven science. ID proof, no matter how convincing, is not valid proof; while ToE proof is overwhelmingly convincing because by their definition of science, it is proven. Go figure !!!This is far far different than other branches of science where many times theories can be proven to a high degree of accuracy from start to finish, thereby verifying that the theory actually works.I wish you all the best in your attempts to put forth reasonable arguments that declare the glories of our wonderful Creator.BlessingsEdited by John 10:10, : added "be"

Yes so do we all. So far none of you have "put forth" a single piece of positive evidence or a single "reasonable argument".What are the odds of anyone actually doing so.......? Slim.

So far you're 57 posts into the thread and you haven't even presented any positive evidence for I.D. It's hardly any wonder that thinking people aren't convinced.Genetic change is occuring all the time, so why don't we have any photographs or film of the designers in action?

Hi, John. Again, this is a dodge of the central question.But, instead of showing us the evidence for Intelligent Design, you have opted to complain that we wouldn't accept it anyway.I am certainly not "convinced beyond any doubt" that life forms suddenly sprung up by mutation and natural selection in the lower Cambrian period. I do not believe that evidence beyond doubt has been provided for the transitional fossils that I read about all the time. In fact, I personally maintain that a sort of "God of the Gaps" explanation is still possible (and I still hold out a tiny bit of hope that it might be shown true someday, just to justify my otherwise irrational faith in God). But, nobody has provided any evidence that convinces me of it, and many scientists have provided evidence that makes it less and less likely every year, so I will not accept or defend it. There's nothing to defend it with, other than a paucity of information.And, even when someone comes along claiming to have found evidence for a God of the Gaps, I will remain very skeptical, and even attack it, because that's the way science finds out if evidence is worth anything. In fact, that's what happens to literally all new ideas that come out in science: they attract enemies and doubters. So far, the only people to complain about this have been creationists. Everyone else fights back with more experiments.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.