Biased accounts of intelligent design

First the evidence for ID is not just *not overwhelming* it is blatantly non-existent.Second the term pseudoscientific was both logical and accurate.The majority of ID arguments are from personal incredulity while their few attempts at some "science" have been incompetent, insubstantial and demonstrably fake.ID is the poster child for pseudoscience. And all your religious butt hurt cannot change that.

You think it is worse than astrology?

Before I answer that I will need to check my charts.

quote:

---

Aug 23, 2019 - Spend time with someone you love today, Pisces, but keep things light and easy. Don't go too deep, and don't expect others to necessarily feel the things you feel. You might feel slighted when others don't give you the attention that you think you deserve. Don't take it personally. Others may be unfocused and short of attention. Don't expect any major commitments or deep conversations right now.

---

Hmm ... keep things light and easy. Don't go too deep...Well, I guess today's not the right day to answer this, RAZD. Maybe tomorrow.

The fact that you reject the classification of ID as pseudoscience seems to indicate a good deal of trust (as does referring to an article written by Casey Luskin).

Here's the first paragraph:

quote:

---

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

---

Note that evolution is not just natural selection, but it involves mutations as well. It is typical of anti-evolutionists to neglect to mention one or the other of this two-part system.Here is how I might edit this paragraph: How would you edit the first paragraph to remove your objection?Note that further down the article it says:

quote:

---

Reaction from the scientific community

​

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.[8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[98] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[74] Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.[99] More recently, in September 2012, Bill Nye warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.[100][101]

---

For another take on the presumed bias against ID see Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ..., ... along with a couple of examples of what they have so badly gone wrong while pretending to be "experts" and knowledgeable science type peoples.Enjoy

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

We all know the official line. Most of us know far more.

In case someone hasn't already pointed this out, here's how the Wikipedia article on Astrology begins:

quote:

---

Astrology is a pseudoscience that claims to divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

---

Here's how the Wikipedia article on Homeopathy begins:

quote:

---

Homeopathy or hom—opathy is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), a claim that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience — a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific.

---

Wikipedia's introduction to its Flat Earth article includes this:

quote:

---

Despite the scientific fact of Earth's sphericity, pseudoscientific flat Earth conspiracy theories are espoused by modern flat Earth societies and, increasingly, by unaffiliated individuals using social media.

---

Describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience makes perfect sense, which Wikipedia typically seems to do right in the introduction.--Percy

Yet there is no evidence of any "Intelligent Cause" and lots of evidence of an undirected process such as natural selection. But ID is fun to laugh over. The possibility of an Inept Designer or Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inelegant Designer is certainly supported by all the evidence.

Or a Silly Designer ...... certainly not an engineer/architect designing with empathy for people. Perhaps an artist who sometimes likes to shock?If we work backwards from purported design to what the designer is like ...Enjoy

Today's chart:

quote:

---

AUG 24, 2019 - You've been so absorbed by your own life lately that some of your friends may be wondering whether something is wrong with you. There's no law against having your head in the clouds once in a while, but be sure not to leave the people you care about in the lurch. Make sure you follow through on an upcoming social commitmentit will give you a chance to show them that you're doing fine and you're just as eager to hang out with them as ever.

---

Hmm ... can't leave you in the lurch, I do have the social commitment to answer, yeah this is good. I can answer today.Yes.

Yikes, how do they know? ... Works for me (fellow Piscian traveler). Been hard a work on new back porch, and we have guests for dinner tonight ...

(I know nobody's reading this thread anymore, but just in case...)
I didn't say "ID is not pseudoscience"; I was acknowledging that the question of whether ID is pseudoscience is controversial and should have been treated (with both sides quoted) exclusively in a section of the article labeled something like "controversy". By characterizing ID as pseudoscience in the lede Wikipedia was surrendering any pretense it might have to be objective or ( if the following is different form objective) unbiased.
On the other hand , I do not want to seem to be concealing my own views. I believe that the work of (e.g.) Stephen C. Meyer is science, as an unbiased reader will find by examining his arguments.

quote:

---

I believe that the work of (e.g.) Stephen C. Meyer is science, as an unbiased reader will find by examining his arguments

---

I believe otherwise.( ABE See Message 60 and Message 98)Neutrality does not mean refusing to disagree with your opinions.The Wikipedia consensus is that ID is pseudoscience and engaging in edit wars and hostility to try and change that is counterproductive.Edited by PaulK, : Added links to previous messages in this thread showing problems with ID as science