Replies

Actually ID is inherently contradictory. It tries to explain the impossibility of complexity -- by relying on an infinitely complex creator. That's not science, it's not even logical.

You misunderstand ID. It argues that organisms are so complex and the various functions of parts of organisms are so complex, evolution cannot possibly be the explanation. ID is a rejection of the false assumptions of evolution. It is the complete rejection of 'chance'.

Actually, it is quite logical. ID actually makes observations and reaches a conclusion. Evolution, on the other hand, uses premises to reach conclusions and then tries to find evidence to prove the premises/conclusions.

I find it interesting that the evolutionists rejects ID as science because, in their words, it cannot be "falsified", but evolution can be falsified. It seems pretty clear to me that the IDers have falsified evolution and the falsification is based on scientific observation. While it doesn't 'prove' ID, it certainly does tend to disprove evolution.

I suppose if one wanted to distinguish creationists from IDers, it would be fair to say, generally: 1. All creationists are IDers, and thus, reject evolution on the basis of faith and/or science. Don't think anyone would dispute this statement.

2. IDers reject evolution because the scientific improbabilities associated with evolution based on observation. One does not have take this position based on any religious faith.

The defense of the school board seems to be based on #2. The claim of the plaintiff is that ID=creation. Logically speaking, it is not true.

You misunderstand ID. It argues that organisms are so complex and the various functions of parts of organisms are so complex, evolution cannot possibly be the explanation.

Ok. But if evolution, which is capable of evolving intelligence is false, then where did your "intelligence" come from that created species? If there is a mechanism other than evolution for forming complex structures with "intelligence", then what is it?

This is your conundrum. If evolution, or some other detectable mechanism for generating species is impossible, then so is the existence of an "intelligence" in the first place.

It seems pretty clear to me that the IDers have falsified evolution and the falsification is based on scientific observation.

One piece of evidence is all I ask. You totally clutter op the thread with one false allegation after another but you never show a shred of evidence for your bogus allegations.

"You misunderstand ID. It argues that organisms are so complex and the various functions of parts of organisms are so complex, evolution cannot possibly be the explanation. ID is a rejection of the false assumptions of evolution. It is the complete rejection of 'chance'."

So you admit that there is a possibility that evolution can explain it? And what is 'complex'? Is it just to complex for Behe, Dembski and you? What is 'chance' for you? To survive an hurricane in New Orleans and afterwards get shot by looters? What assumptions of the theory of evolution are false? Only animals reaching a procreative age may have children? Offsprings are different from their parents?

"Actually, it is quite logical. ID actually makes observations and reaches a conclusion. Evolution, on the other hand, uses premises to reach conclusions and then tries to find evidence to prove the premises/conclusions."

The only observation ID makes is: "We are to brainless to know!" The conclusion is that someone else must have a brain - the intelligent designer.
By the way, what premises are used by the theory of evolution?

"I find it interesting that the evolutionists rejects ID as science because, in their words, it cannot be "falsified", but evolution can be falsified. It seems pretty clear to me that the IDers have falsified evolution and the falsification is based on scientific observation. While it doesn't 'prove' ID, it certainly does tend to disprove evolution."

The observation that we don't know everything is neither scientific nor does it disprove something else.

Is it possible to falsify ID? Compare it with a weather forecast. On Fox they tell you "Saturday we will have heavy rains!" On Saturday day we have a bright sun shiny day. You probably are going to flame the studio for canceling a barbecue. What consequences does ID have (except the fact to steal time)? None!

Evolution on the other hand made sometimes even bad predictions. The prediction that the bird flu is very likely to recombine with an human virus is one. Is ID capable of some kind of predictions?

You misunderstand ID. It argues that organisms are so complex and the various functions of parts of organisms are so complex, evolution cannot possibly be the explanation. ID is a rejection of the false assumptions of evolution. It is the complete rejection of 'chance'.

Proposing ID is science is nothing but an attempt to change the definition of science in order to use this new 'science' to 'scientifically' prove that God exists.

It's not gonna work.