Nova Blatantly Misrepresents Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute ^ | November 14, 2007 | Casey Luskin

[js1138]

If you are worries about the Discovery Institute, your fears are excessive, I think.

The people who need to worry about the Discovery Institute are their contributors. They could not have done a better job of dismantling the political effectiveness of their movement if they had been actively working for the other side. Sometimes I think they are.

[doc30]

ID is not science because it does not produce falsifiable hyptheses. But anyone who support ID don’t know what sceince is or what science does. That’s the root of the problem. ID supporters are creationists trying to overturn sciecne so they can ram their superstitious beliefs down the throats of children, and without a care about how bad their science backgrounds will be. ID is a deception in the step to another dark age where the Chruch ruled and everyone was Christian.

[CottShop]

First off Doc- Science doesn’t stand or fall on whether osmethign is falisfiable or not- much in science has progressed without EVER being falsifiable- Secondly- Not that it is even necessary- but ID IS Falsifiable, it is predictable and it is testable- meeting ALL of the irrelevent criteria of Karl Popper. As for hte rest of you post- it’s just more blatant ignorance- Kudos- at least you’re consistent

[CottShop]

Before you go accusing others of ‘not understanding scinece’ perhaps you should hone up on facts before posting- Science need onyl be verifiable

Is Intelligent Design Testable? William A. Dembski: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html

Is Intelligent Design Testable?: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=584

Miller spanked for making the false claim that ID isn’t sicnece because it isn’t falsifiable: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/09/title_43.html

Intelligent Design is falisifalbe: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494

OU Biochemist Phillip Klebba on the Bacterial Flagellum:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ou-biochemist-phillip-klebba-on-the-bacterial-flagellum/

Pseudo Scientific Dogma: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pseudo-scientific-dogma/

What Counts as a Plausible Scientific Theory?: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/what-counts-as-a-plausible-scientific-theory/

Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinian-tradition-of-making-grandiose-claims-based-on-piddling-results/

[CottShop]

[[ID is a non starter. Should be called SD (stupid Design). I mean how come we have an appendix, or guys go bald at 50, or Autism, you name it.]]

You are confusing intelligent design with perfect design- a common mistake by those who don’t understand the concept of ID. When an archeologist finds a clay pot- or even several clay pots, the ONLY conclusion to be made is that an intelligence created the pots- Are hte pots perfect? Unbreakable? Flawless? No- despite htis, the obvious conclusion is that intelligence went into the creation of these pots- another example is folks who like to point ot Chimps and hteir use of tools- the use of hte tools is termed intelligent use- is it perfect? Are hte tools perfect? No- We live in a state of constant entropy, and nothign is perfect- yet many things are indeed intelligently caused.

[stubernx98]

“You are confusing intelligent design with perfect design....”

Thanks for helping me with that. I was under the impression that ID was that evolution of mankind(and other life forms)was guided by God. So if it is not God who was it? I can see your pot analogy, cause man certainly is imperfect, look at all that stuff coming crom China.

Man has been involved in lots of evolution such as horse breeding, and plant modification.

Interesting

[aNYCguy]

I was doing some thinking about why it seems that nine times out of ten if you run across someone who’s a scientist and a creationist, they’re an engineer (whose rule is that?)

The one I've heard is that 9/10 creationist "scientists" you run across will be electrical engineers specifically. This doesn't reflect badly on electrical engineers, of course, because the majority of us are not creationists, being big fans of science.

[bezelbub]

As my native language isn't English, I sometimes have difficulties to follow the debates. But deciphering your posts belongs to the hardest tasks.
What's an osmethign?

[Coyoteman]

Before you go accusing others of ‘not understanding scinece’ perhaps you should hone up on facts before posting- Science need onyl be verifiable

You claim to be promoting ID as science, yet every one of your nine links is to a fundie website!

What's the problem? Can't you find any real science websites that agree with you?

When it comes to science, you have long since forfeited any credibility you might have had. It is clear that you have no real interest in science; your only purpose here seems to be promoting your own particular view of religion--which, incidentally, seems to be a very minority view.

[CottShop]

you REALLY need a new sqwacking point- seriously- I’ve forfeited? Lol- that’s precious coming fro m someone who doesn’t even udnerstand the very basics of ID and insists somethign that isn’t true- But you just keep right on beleiving that- must be nice living in the land of Oz.

[CottShop]

It was God, and no- ID studies the created design of man and species- not hte evolution of man, but it makes no claim as to the creator- just that the desing seen in nature and biology is intelligently designed per the mass amounts of design complexities that defy natural laws which render small accumulations of biological mistakes impossible

[CottShop]

[[You claim to be promoting ID as science, yet every one of your nine links is to a fundie website!]

That’s a lie- Demski’s site as well as many others I’ve listed here and elsewhere are NOT fundie sites in the least- the fact is Coyote- sites like the ‘fundie’ sites I do list have good material (Which you obviously skip right over) which expose thel ies and deceitful misleadings of sites liek Talkorigins- I gave a whole list of sites that included SECULAR ID sites and research going on awhile back- so no- sorry to burts your little bubble, but no- I don’t have problems- but if trying to make up an argument out of nothign is hte best you can do- woe is Macroevolution I guess!

[CottShop]

Ywes I apologize, I type fasst, hit keys I shouldn’t, and mispell words- “osmethign” is “something” in disguise

[stubernx98]

OK, now I think I am getting it. ID starts with the assumption that the complexity and perfection of life as we know it could not of occurred through T&E (trial & error), survival of the fittest etc., nd etc. This assumption is based upon numerous studies, both mathematical and empirical, that state evolution could not happen randomly.

I reject the underlying assumption because:
1. Current life forms are far from perfect.
2. Life forms are evolving daily both due to the hand of man and natural selection (Think MRSA).

Of course once you have a point of view, your built in filter makes sure only supporting data gets through. That is why Muslims stay Muslims, Liberals stay liberal and so on. We humans aren't particularly rational no matter what our IQ. Me either when it comes to the stock market:-)

[CottShop]

Your rejections aren’t valid-

1: ID doesn’t rely on perfection models- ID simply sutdies complexity- which of course is variable, and hwich could not have biologically arisen through T&E- irreducible complexity means any part not present renders a system non functional

2: Life forms are MICROEVOLVING not MACROEvolving