Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

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

[Elsie]

So you accept the Theory of Evolution, then. No...

MY 'id' is the creator, GOD; Jesus=GOD in the flesh. HE does things real fast and accurate. No need for 'chance' and 'time' to function.

[highball]

Ah, so you don't actually think Intelligent Design is correct.

Not surprising, I guess. Most people who adopt ID abandon it once they learn it has some scientific foundation.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Ouch, that had to hurt.

[bvw]

While you tried to expand the limited intellectual horizons the cultish insistance on the HoE imposes upon a mind, you are still caught in the same traps of pseudo-science which Popper identified with Marxist Economics. Just as a HoE cultist confidently insists that HoE explains or predicts with any and all observations of biological (or geological, or cosmological) systems, a Marxist would so claim that Marxist "Theory" explained or predicted any observation of economic (or indeed, social) systems.

The words you used, "because the TOE has been confirmed by every piece of evidence ever presented" could have, and probably were at some point spoken by a Marxist as "Marxist *Theory* has been confirmed by every piece of evidence ever presented." And such a claim of univerisal confirmations is exactly the point of Popper's mark No. 7 (in the Popper citation above). And thus, it is the measure by which a proper Popper proponent debunks HoE.

[bvw]

Not flight nor fright keeps me from further responding to the impatient brute.

[Elsie]

Ah, so you don't actually think Intelligent Design is correct.

Huh?

Please... make up my mind for me; I'm SO confused.

[highball]

Words mean things, Elsie. If you deny the basic foundations of ID, how can you claim that ID is right? You cannot simultaneously argue the two.

What would you say to someone who claims to be a Catholic but rejects transubstantiation or Papal infallibility?

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Then obviously you have nothing to base your opinion on.

Thank you for that confirmation.

Now go play on a thread that has nothing to do with science, because you haven't any idea when it comes to science, and we know that now.

Have fun.

[Gumlegs]

Very nice hermetically sealed opinion you have, confirming my observation that you either don't understand Popper, the TOE, or both.

One gets the distinct impression that you're parroting someone dishonestly trying to confect without the benefit of anything resembling a fact an objection to the TOE. Darwin himself proposed possible disproofs of the theory, none of which has been demonstrated. That you ignore that in favor of vague smears about Marxism is quite telling.

Once again, your objection that the TOE hasn't yet been falsified is an objection to every theory in science.

But why not cut to the chase and present some evidence that would discredit the TOE?

Come on, edify us. Is that a Precambrian rabbit fossil in your pocket or are you part of the World Wide Marxist Conspiracy yourself?

[cornelis]

I object to the word *assumption* here.

Induction and assumptions are compatible.