Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

Russ Paielli ^ | 2006-10-01 | Russ Paielli

[RussP]

----cut----

The notion that Intelligent Design theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism." The main idea is that a hypothesis or theory does not qualify as "scientific" unless it is "falsifiable" (which is independent of whether it is actually "true" or "false"). Popper is revered by evolutionists, but certainly even they would agree that we should not blindly accept his word as revealed truth. So let us consider some of the implications of his "falsifiability" criterion.

----cut----

The ultimate irony here is that, given Popper's definition of science, the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution itself is based on an "unscientific" foundation. How did the first living cell come to be? If Intelligent Design is categorically rejected, then that first cell must have come together more or less by random chance. Mathematicians and physicists have argued (and claim to have proved) that the simplest conceivable living cell is far too complex to have come together by random chance, but evolutionists always reply that, given enough time and space, "anything" can happen. In this case, the evolutionists are correct: proving that the first cell could not have formed by random chance is impossible. But that is just another way of saying that any purely naturalistic theory of abiogenesis is unfalsifiable, hence "unscientific" according to Popper's falsifiability criterion. [When cornered with this undeniable fact, evolutionists usually claim that abiogenesis is "separate" from evolution. But that's not quite true: evolution depends on abiogenesis. Evolution obviously could not have occurred if the first living cell had never come into existence!]

----cut----

[Vaquero]

One can believe in the creation of the universe by a creator..the same creator who made the 'soul' of man in his own image and likeness, without throwing out the science of the universe. You see by throwing out the science...your questioning God's motives...his techniques and you're not living up to his expectations of the inquisitive sentient being he breathed life into.

Evolution and God WORKS...just ask a Catholic.

[Elsie]

I believe it can be done, but that is an expression of faith, not scientific proof.

Fair enough...

---

Oh...

That diagram needs the disclaimer: "Then a miracle happens!" ;^)

[Elsie]

So...

you are the result of...

an Imperfect replicator!

[Elsie]

If we had a designer, he hates us, and he's evil, and sadistic.

See where your belief in "E" leads you.

[Elsie]

I guess maybe that is why I am here. I don't think a lot of the "combat" (and vitriol) is very helpful. furthermore, I don't think the world will fall apart if one sentence is included in a textbook acknowledging that evolutionary theory should be viewed as incomplete in some respects.

HERETIC!!!!

Light the torches!!

-- EvoDude

[Elsie]

It just doesn't make any difference to what happened later.

Or now; for that matter.

Why do we argue then?

[Elsie]

I can't imagine a truce under the conditions in which it's almost impossible to post and discuss a science article on FR without snake-handlers showing up to announce that most of us are going to Hell.

Watch out what you wish for ;^)

---

A long time ago, a fellow (WHO said, "I tell you the truth..." a lot) was reported to have said...

"Broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are on it. Narrow is the path that leads to Life, and few find it."

(excuse LC's poor paraphrase)

[Elsie]

Full Disclosure: It looked like flame bait, intending to get a bunch of responses along the lines of "Burn in Hell, Sinner!"

And I have such a GENTLE tagline! ;^)

[Elsie]

Evolution is the best scientific theory, to explain the evidence that we have, this is a fact, there is no disputing that, but creationists take the statement, evolution does not have all the answers, or is incomplete, to mean that it is somehow a failure as a theory, which is complete nonsense.

(Maybe just partial...)

[Elsie]

But it was obviously not written in such a spirit of fair play - confusing evolution and abiogenesis reveals either gross ignorance of science or a dishonest attempt to obfuscate.

Confusing?

Not to me!

It merely pointed out that you HAVE to have the Second before the First can be alledged to occur.

[Elsie]

Ok then... "It wouldn't be recognized by SOME people."!


(There's GOT to be "a dime's worth of difference" in there, somewhere ;^)

[bmwcyle]

Are these threads going to stop the rising Socialist movement in America?

HELL NO!

[Elsie]

Some people just do not have a sense of humor, I am sorry that I now need to add you to the list.

"Therefore; proof of EVOLUTION!"

--EvoDude

[Elsie]

...until the first imperfect replicating cell came into existence...

How does IMPERFECTION occur?

[Elsie]

There is a separate theory that attempts to explain it, and that is called abiogenesis.

Did it evolve from the ToE somewhere in the past? ;^)

[Elsie]

Time travelling humans from the future seeded this planet's past.

Watch out!

That circular thingy lies in wait!

[Elsie]

Inanimate computer programs replicate. That's a fact. until the memory fills up and the cpu crashes.

---

Game inDEED over!

[Elsie]

Abandon thread

 

 

<best_Arnold_voice>

 

       "You'll be Bahck!"

 

</best_Arnold_voice>

[Elsie]

Evolution and God WORKS...just ask a Catholic.

 

Oh???

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

Acts 17:26-27

26. From one man

he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If there were no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

Acts 17:24-26

24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
25. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

1 Timothy 2:13

For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Was Paul WRONG about these???

If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

NIV Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

[Elsie]

Amen!

Wish to GOD that they could!


"Give me more of THEIR money, and I will vote for you!"
-- DU talking point