Does intelligent design have creationist roots?

I agree that many sources of information may, given their credibility, help one form a much broader sense of what's right or worng. The point being made however, is that anyone is welcome to carry on any type of experimental analisis on the date collected. BUT, and this is of the upmost importance, those cunducting these inqueries MUST follow certain guildlines for how evidence and conclusions are rendered.In science it is refered to as the Scientific Method:

quote:

---

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

---

So, given that anyone has the right to conduct any such investigation on their own, would you agree that the above method is the best way to do so, and, is the best way to verify that the conclusions are based on actual, observable evidence?If you can agree to the above question, then I see no reason why you would be skeptical of science, or scientist, since they are held to the rigors of having to follow the scientific method, and any scientist not doing so will feel the effects of not doing his/her work properly.Perhaps you can elaborate on what you see as a problem with modern science?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi traderdrew, To save us the process of having to explain all of it, just answer the question about the method that science uses. The scientific method which I provided a link for.Do you at least appreciate the rigorous method used to arrive at conclusions in science? Are you, in your opinion, satisfied with the methods used by science? ...that better explains the phenomenon. It can't just be any theory, it must still do the job of explaining it better. Sure we have, the evidence that refutes it is that there is no evidence to support it in the first place. There is no evidence that says the hologram universe is anything more than another attempt to add an outside source for the existance of this universe, that in and of itself, can't be explained, either. It just moves the goal post further back.It's like answering the question of abiogenesis with saying that aliens did it. Ok. So where did the aliens come from? Did their origin come about from natural causes, or other aliens as well? And so on, etc.Ok fine, it's a hologram universe, then what? Who created the hologram? And how does the current controler of this hologram universe know that they themselves aren't in a hologram as well? And so on, etc.The hologram universe idea, ONE, isn't anything other than a hypothesis, and, TWO, doesn't have scientific evidence to support it. If you know of some please show me. No there isn't, just pseudo-scientific speculation. Show me the evidence for it.What there is is a lack of being able to provide evidence against the hypothesis. But then again, can you prove to me that God didn't create us last thursday and programed us with all of our memories that you think you've actually experienced? No, you can't. However, would you consider that sufficient evidence for my hypothesis, or, a valid theory as to the origins of our current existance? First, I'd say to re-evalute what you consider to be scientific evidence and see if it's supported with any other laws/facts/theories.I draw the line at science vs. pseudo-science.- OniPS. Btw, I see you're from Palm beach, ever go to the Palm Beach Improv? I perform there all the time. Edited by onifre, : added PS.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

How do you "test" something that is nothing more than a rule for reasoning?Here's a quote I found in wiki to help you understand why invoking the anthropic principle is flawed:

quote:

---

The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of undermining the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. Those who invoke the anthropic principle often invoke multiple universes or an intelligent designer, both controversial and criticised for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of accepted science.

---

Note that both a mutliverse system and intelligent design were considered controversial, they did not single out intelligent design only. I have never said that if something is not testable using the scientific method it is not true. However, since the evidence is gathered by objective observation, and if the only evidence rendered by this method shows no sign of a creator or design, then, based off of this objective evidence, whatever it is that one proposes as existing cannot be verified objectively. Now, does that mean it doesn't exist, of course not, but it does mean that there is no current evidence to support the assertion. Again, how do you support the assertion that the supernatural exists to begin with?I have evidence for the natural, so I have reason to believe that natural causes can and are capable of acting in such a way that complexity can arise. You however, do not have evidence for the supernatural and therefore cannot invoke anything supernatural until such time as evidence for it is produced.Now, given that the long list of things that supernatural forces were responsible for has, as many have pointed out to you, been reduced throughout time, why does this now newly introduced supernatural force for biological lifes origin considered any better than any other assertion about supernatural forces that has been proven wrong? It may very well have a limit as well, not just boundaries, but currently it is on the rise due to new technology and doesn't seem to have a limiting factor, yet. Yeah, it's right next to the theater. They actually just re-opened it, it's very nice. Next time I'm there I'll let you know.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Yes, of course. It seems that you are doing this very thing.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

No. In other words, people in the past have taken to invoke supernatural forces to explain what they considered to be a mystery, until science came along and explained in by naural means.This is not a "trend", and it seems like if you are taking this route in your responses, then you are out of argument. No. WTF are you taling about? What "trend"?Are you comparing scientific theories to Ed Hardy t-shirts?That's a "trend" and "cultural style", science showing evidence against certain imagined supernatural miracles is just science doing it's job.Is that all that you have left?Why don't you address the actual points I make in my posts instead of trying to quote mine me?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I would say that YECreationism and ID is completely different.At least ID agrees with most aspects of the theory of evolution; they don't discard the theory completely, they only take issue with a few things. Mostly, irreducible complexity, etc.Where as a YECreationist disagrees with the theory completely. He/she believes the earth is more or less 10,000 years old and God made everything as is.To me this seems like a huge difference.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Hi PaulK Hi Perdition, Well shit, thanks. Honestly I had no idea YEC was accepted by ID proponents. The very little I read about ID - (I try to keep my reading to actual science and conspiracy theories ) - never really covered their opinion of a young earth. And most of the ID supporters here have seemed to accept an old earth. Do we have any YEC/ID supporters on this site?I understand that a YEC can support the ID movement, I just didn't know the ID supporters were accepting of YEC. I just assumed the ID folks didn't dispute geology as well.Thanks for the lesson, fellas.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.