Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

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

[RussP]

I have posted this article before, but that was a long time ago, and I just revised it a bit, so I decided to post it again.

In the spirit of free and open inquiry, I challenge evolutionists to read the article and actually think rather than simply regurgitating the standard evolutionist talking points and ad hominem insults.

And please do not add bogus keywords. That will only demonstrate your inability to debate rationally.

[cornelis]

First figure out how you determine what science is.

[AntiGuv]

No. Next!

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[RussP]

You are a classic example of someone who is beyond the reach of reason. Congratulations!

[Al Simmons]

*CREVO FLYING BRICK-BAT PING LIST*

Note: You have been pinged because I noticed you engaging in a spirited discussion on a previous CREVO thread. This is a low-volume, bi-partisan, ping list designed to bring the occasional interesting article on this topic to your attention. If you would like to be removed from this ping list, please drop me a FReepmail.

[RadioAstronomer]

TOE does not depend on abiogenesis.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

That's nice, but has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution doesn't care how the first cell came into being, it could have been random chance, it could have been the flying spaghetti monster, it could have been a UFO that came down and planted it.

It really doesn't matter to evolution, there was a first cell that was an imperfect replicator, and evolution took it from there.

TO say that the first cell popping up by itself makes evolution impossible is a strawman argument, and does nothing to the theory of evolution.

[tomzz]

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.

Like buying an item for two dollars and selling it for two dollars, and hoping to make money on volume....

[SoldierDad]

You are a classic example of someone who is beyond the reach of reason. Congratulations!

Example of ad hominem insult?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Yes. Next!

[spatso]

Benedict is very clear. In his recent speech he covered many areas, only one got much attention. But, in addition to his comments on Islam Benedict appears to clearly reject the foundations of Intelligent Design. He said,

"Only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific...A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God."

[FairWitness]

Coming at it from the other direction, specific hypotheses put forward in the name of intelligent design (e.g., flagella are too complicated to have evolved by darwinian processes) are falsifiable if it can be shown that darwinian processes are capable of producing flagella. Saying that is too much work or will take too long is avoiding the issue. If the hypothesis is not falsifiable, then perhaps the production of flagella by evolution is an article of faith.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

BTW, there is no such thing as an evolutionist, either you understand the theory, or you don't. In science there is no belief. There is scientific evidence, that backs up the theory, that is falsifiable and repeatable.

To say that evolutionists always say "anything can happen" is nonsense, and to continue to claim that without abiogenesis, evolution is impossible, does not make it the truth.

Without physics, is there no astronomy? Without archeology, is there not microbiology?

they are 2 separate theories, they are related in a cosmological sense, but as far as whether the theories depend on each other to be true, is complete nonsense, and again, a strawman argument.

create strawman, tear the strawman down, and say up front, don't you dare attack my strawman as being a strawman.

Sorry, burn strawman, burn!

[Dimensio]

If Intelligent Design is categorically rejected, then that first cell must have come together more or less by random chance.

Strawman. "Intelligent Design" is not "categorically rejected". Moreover, "Intelligent Design" does not specify the origin of the first cell. Finally, the theory of evolution is independent of the means by which the first life form(s) came to exist. Your argument employs three false premises, thus it cannot be trusted as valid.

[RussP]

I'll bet you think you win a debate by shouting louder than the other guy.

[Dimensio]

Coming at it from the other direction, specific hypotheses put forward in the name of intelligent design (e.g., flagella are too complicated to have evolved by darwinian processes) are falsifiable if it can be shown that darwinian processes are capable of producing flagella.

If that is a falsification criteria, then Intelligent Design has already been falsified.

[RussP]

"To say that evolutionists always say "anything can happen" is nonsense, and to continue to claim that without abiogenesis, evolution is impossible, does not make it the truth."

So you are claiming that evolution is possible without abiogenesis? So evolution could have occurred without the first living cell? With all due respect, I think you are profoundly confused.

[FairWitness]

Not exactly. That would mean that one hypothesis put forward by intelligent design has been falsified.

[Dimensio]

So you are claiming that evolution is possible without abiogenesis? So evolution could have occurred without the first living cell?

False dichotomy. The "first living cell" need not have come about through abiogenesis.