Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 264 (543972)
01-22-2010 2:08 PM


This is an easy one!
"What biological evidence is there against Intelligent Design?"
The human knee. That disproves ID right there!

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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 129 of 264 (545293)
02-02-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by hawkes nightmare
02-02-2010 8:53 PM


Re: Clarification
There is a good piece on this topic here.
Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design, by Mark Isaak
From the Introduction:
A fundamental tenet of creationism is that all life looks designed, and a commonly cited example of this design is the bombardier beetle. Supporting such a claim requires an examination of the bombardier beetle and of what "design" really means. Upon examination of these issues, however, the bombardier beetle shows evidence of evolution and seriously challenges the concept of design.
This article first looks at bombardier beetles and what makes them special; then it examines how they relate to different concepts of design-- specifically, complexity, pattern, and purpose.
From the Conclusion:
Finally, remember that the general arguments used here apply to a lot more than bombardier beetles. Creationists have argued for an appearance of design in everything from bacteria flagella to butterfly metamorphosis. Those arguments all share the same fallacies; they are all based on a combination of ignorace combined with a concept of design that is indistinguishable from evolution. If a kind of design incompatible with evolution were found in biology, nobody would be more excited than the professional biologists. As yet we haven't found such a design.
There are also links to other articles, as well as references.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by hawkes nightmare, posted 02-02-2010 8:53 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 203 of 264 (546315)
02-09-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by traderdrew
02-09-2010 10:03 PM


Is this any way to run a universe?
So when the past is reconstructed, science infers the best explanation. This explanation isn't always the same thing as the truth.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
So you go ahead and find truth, Truth, TRUTH, and even TRVTH. Proclaim it from the soapboxes, pulpits and rooftops.
But watch out for the tens of thousands of other sects, denominations, and religions that claim that they and they alone have the one true truth, Truth, TRUTH, and TRVTH. (Is this any way to run a universe?)
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to science and the pretty good explanations that science provides.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 10:03 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024