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

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

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Ergo the concept of God should not be removed as a possible variable in the discussion.

[Trimegistus]

String theory _is_ falsifiable. It makes certain statements about the Universe which are disprovable -- in particular about Calabi-Yau shapes. There's a great account in Brian Greene's book on string theory about one such early test.

Saying it's not falsifiable means that either:
a) You don't know what you're talking about, in which case you shouldn't be blathering about this, or
b) You're deliberately lying to us, in which case God will boil you in magma for a billion years.

[Junior]

Don't have to. I know what I know. If it doesn't square with your beliefs, oh well. C'est la guerre.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Ergo the concept of God should not be removed as a possible variable in the discussion."

Ergo the concept of God should not be introduced into a scientific discussion.

[zeeba neighba]

My beliefs are irrelevant. Yours do not square with the bible.

[Junior]

Okay, so when your ideas pass the rigors of peer review we'll include them in science class. Ya gots ta take your lumps same as everyone else.

[zeeba neighba]

Next time you get a message in the ether from Oprah, tell her I said hi to tom Criuse

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Your brilliance must then be slimed in primordial ooze, because you missed my original point, which had nothing to do with Darwin per se and everything to do with those who have been routinely twisting his writings in order to prove that God does not exist.

Had you gotten that original point of mine, we wouldn't be discussing these foundational tenets.

Not ALL evolutionists are doing this. But many are. They misuse evolutionary theory to reverse-engineer back to an original life cell evolving spontaneously. Yes, I have read Darwin's works, they're on my shelves in front of me. I don't remember him tracing the origin of kingdom back to an original cell, only species back to a common gene pool.

It is the secularists who have made that huge leap of faith from that precipice of theory to the one that states life accidentally evolved from nothing. They are the ones I argue with.

[xzins]

Having lived a total of 8 years in Germany in my lifetime, I would say that many of those German soldiers actually believed that. They also believed it in WWI under the Kaiser.

The Kaiser, if I remember correctly, was a proper Evangelische. Hitler, on the other hand,

According to a press release from Catholic League President, William A. Donohue (2/4/99): "Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist whose conscience was not informed by Christianity, but by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church. In 1933, Hitler said, 'It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'" The Catholic League also quoted Hitler, in a 4/23/99 Op-Ed ad in the New York Times, as saying, "Antiquity was better than modern times, because it didn't know Christianity and syphilis." Ouch!

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html

[ml1954]

In that time and in those places, slavery was a fact of life. It is a fact of life today. Who, other than christians, speak out against it?

Exodus 20 says God created the universe in 6 days and Exodus 21 says slavery is OK with God. So why are 'christians' speaking out against slavery but whole heartedly supporting 6 day creation?

[Junior]

And, as I said earlier, I do not consider the Bible the inerrant Word of God, so not squaring with the Bible has no effect on my arguments.

[Junior]

Certainly, though it might be a while as I don't chat with Oprah.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There have been changes within the cat family and the dog family but that is after their kind.

What is your operational definition of "kindness"? Are housecats and lions the same kind? Are tigers and lions?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Peer review is just that. It is not acceptance by those who oppose the theory. It is a review that establishes the theory is soundly based.

Do you really discount the hard work performed by those looking for another possible answer to this riddle have done? Do I need to name them and their positions?

Come on, it is a well developed theory that has been soundly fleshed out and explained. If you disagree with it, that's one thing. But you oughtn't try to discount it. I may not have faith in the view of God of other religions, but I'm not about to say that those who believe them do not have a reason to believe, or that their faith is somehow inferior to what I believe.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Your brilliance must then be slimed in primordial ooze, because you missed my original point, which had nothing to do with Darwin per se and everything to do with those who have been routinely twisting his writings in order to prove that God does not exist.

Had you gotten that original point of mine, we wouldn't be discussing these foundational tenets.

I got your point; I just thinks it's wrong. Most people who agree with evolution also believe in God. Your statement was nonsense.

"Not ALL evolutionists are doing this. But many are. They misuse evolutionary theory to reverse-engineer back to an original life cell evolving spontaneously."

No, none do that. Spontaneous generation is neither a part of evolution nor abiogenesis.

"It is the secularists who have made that huge leap of faith from that precipice of theory to the one that states life accidentally evolved from nothing."

Nobody says this.

"They are the ones I argue with."

You argue with nobody.

[zeeba neighba]

God never says slavery is ok. It exists, as sin exists, as a fact of life. To equate an evil in society with creation by a holy God is ludicrous.

[xzins]

I agree that the statistics have (on average) infidelity running from about 30% to 70%. That leaves plenty of room for some NOT to have committed that particular sin.

However, there are 10 (at least) commandments. That leaves 9 to stumble on.

I think the numbers on theft are far higher.

Coveting is probably universal, BUT, it, too, is one of the commandments.

[zeeba neighba]

I do not consider the Bible the inerrant Word of God

Very revealing, yet you consider "chattings" that you perceive when driving, as the true word. My zeebra head is spinning, round and round

[bobhoskins]

And I thought science was supposed to be open minded.

It is.

What IDers and creationists don't seem to understand, possibly because they don't spend much time looking at other areas of science, is that MOST competing scientific hypothese are put through a wringer by the scientific community before they are discarded, or in some cases accepted.

It's part of the scientific process. Those ideas that can survive rigorous scientific review move onwards ... those that don't do not deserve to. Sometimes the process can take a long time.

NO scientific opinion, no matter how much you want it to, should skip the whole process of scientific testing, review, and study, and be taught directly in the science classroom on an equal footing with currently accepted scientific theory.

If IDers are so certain their ideas are correct, they need to go through the prcoess. This doesn't include just showing evolution is wrong ... as that does not mean, necessarily, that ID is right.

Plenty of scientists in other fields than evolution have presented concepts and been considered crackpots until testing and evidence backed them up ... sometimes even after they died. Of course, many more scientists have been justifiably shown to be crackpots.

There are plenty of BAD ideas out there in science, that haven't been weeded out yet, and why should we allow ID in the door before it's proven it's not one of these bad ideas if we aren;t going to allow ANY hypothese any politically/financially/spiritually motivated group has before it's gone through the necessary steps?

[ml1954]

God never says slavery is ok.

Once again...

Exodus 21:20-21: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property"

Since this is the literal word of God and God says 'the slave is his property' it's follows that God thinks slavery is OK. There is no condemnation of slavery here.