Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/10/2005 | Uriah Kriegel

[Dimensio]

I think he used an inclined plane to make round things "fall" slower, and he measured the time with his pulse.

I remember doing this in a high school physics class.

[js1138]

But not accurate enough to establish the rate of acceleration with any precision.

My point is that Galileo used direct observation of falling objects. Newton used induction and inference.

[PatrickHenry]

I remember doing this in a high school physics class.

Yes, me too, but unless you went to school over 400 years ago, Galileo did it first.

[JohnnyM]

I have a question on "Claim CB801" dealing with classifying human fossils vs ape fossils.

Wouldn't the question of classification be put to rest if you saw the actual living specimen represented by the fossilized bones. For example, if you saw an ape and a human, you could tell the two apart very easily, but if you saw an ape skull and a human skull without their "outer shell" it would be much harder to classify. Is it fair to absolutely classify a specimen when you are missing the very information that makes distinct classification possible?

Also, in many of these cases, scientists only have a small portion of the skeleton. The may only have a skull, a hand, or other bone, and without the full skeleton, which would better help in classification, aren't they just making educated guesses?

JM

[wallcrawlr]

oh, sheesh...how come everything turns into a production

[wallcrawlr]

Oh yeah, you should see the badges, trophies and ribbons I have...all due to my lyin' skillz

[Doctor Stochastic]

...defining a specie...

[Pedant Mode='ON']

[Pedant Mode='OFF']

[Stark_GOP]

Hey, if you want to stand by such gems as:

"Conversely, the story of Adam and Eve may well be pure truth, but if it is, it's not scientific truth, but some other kind of truth."

and

"None of this suggests that ID is in fact false. For all I've said, it may well be pure truth. But if it is, it wouldn't be scientific truth, because it isn't scientific at all. As such, we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says."

Yeah...right. the Constitution says that.

[Rudder]

Freud has been utterly deligitimized ... because much of what he wrote proved to be, in practice, false.

In actual practice Freud has been shown to be very useful.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Ignorance of the ID proponents doesn't rise to the level of evidence against evolution.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's what happens without peer review. (Or simple editorial proof reading.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Godwin's Law always strikes the Creationists first.

[P-Marlowe]

before anyone starts worrying about saving my soul, I'm an ordained elder in my church

When God wrote with his own hand on tablets of stone that in six days He made "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" was he lying or just mistaken?

[Doctor Stochastic]

All taxonomy since the late 1800s has used evolutionary theory as a basis. Species are grouped (hopefully) into genera based on common ancestry (rather than color or such.) -- According to G.H.M.Lawrence's 1955 taxonomy book.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Ichneumon always gives good post.

[Rudder]

The problem is that those on the Darwinism side of the debate refuse to see or studiously ignore the fact that the natural sciences do not contain all possible knowledge.

Your statement is absolutely false. The first things one learns on the road to being a scientist are the limitations of science. I don't know what field you're in but you need to learn accurately about science before you spout off so cavalierly.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps the creationists are all descended from Creteans.

[Junior]

Nearly all those out-of-context quotes originated on a small handful of websites; they've been copied by other creationists (one can literally trace the copies by the presence of typographical errors). None of the fools who post them on these threads has ever actually read the original works; he or she is simply copying and pasting from one of the sites hosting them.

[Junior]

Indeed. My wife is wrapping up her Master's in Psychology, and she's had to study Freud.

[Junior]

Maybe the guy who wrote the story made up the part about God writing it with His own hand.

Naw, that would never cross your mind, would it? You readily believe, without evidence, that the Bible is the Word of God, but then you turn around and ignore the literally mountains of evidence for evolution.