A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

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.

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.

Natural selection is wonderful, isn't it?

---

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

To return to the topic: 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.

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.

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.

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.

The reason I cited Of Pandas and People is the following (this is the textbook going through editions and revisions):

quote:

---

​

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34:
Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.

​

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

​

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

​

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

​

Of Pandas and People (1987, intelligent design version), p. 3-41:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

​

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Life only comes from life" has not been scientifically documented. It appears that it is a religious belief rather than a scientific finding.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.