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

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

[SalukiLawyer]

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact based on the observed reality of the fossil record.

With all due respect, I disagree. I invite you to consider that there is a difference between facts and arguments from facts. Fossils (that are not frauds) are facts. Fossils can be "interrogated" like any other evidence in an effort to figure out what they can tell us, and you may well decide the argument based on their evidence favors evolution. And of course, as you state, even if you like evolution, natural selection is another matter.

Natural selection is not a particularly compelling theory to explain the evidence, in my opinion.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Thank you. Physics is science, mathematics is science, chemistry is science. They are uniform, consistent and predictable. They are subject to experimentation and reproducable demonstration.

Agreed that darwinistic evolution involves a good deal of faith, exactly what it charges its critics of using. It has become the religion of science, a scientific "shibboleth."
It was, as you allude to, also used by people like Marx and Hitler to support some of the most damaging and horrific social, and genetic, engineering ever inflicted on humankind.

If we are just a product of a mechanical biochemistry than whatever is, is... There is no right, no wrong. Not really a world even a materialist biochemist would really want to live in.

[SalukiLawyer]

Is someone from "Shawnee Mission" a neighbor to someone called "SalukiLawyer?" :-) (posting from Deep in the Shawnee National Forest ... old FR allusion heh heh heh)

[glowworm]

As a Christian, I have an open mind. The Genesis stories were imported into Christianity carte blanc as part of the acceptance into the entire Bible of the cononized "Old Testament". Just as science is to be scrutenized for accuracy, so should be any scriptual writings of the past.

The decendants, from "Adam", just don't add up and stupidly indicate a "New Earth" and if we want to be critical of agnostic science, we should also be just as critical of what religious "truths" we accept as fact. Just because some past generation has "canonized" writings doesn't mean search for devine truth should be aborted.

Personally, I believe there is no conflict between true scientific discovery and creation. It is simply our very slow discovery of the original design.

[Just mythoughts]

Ah Shawnee Mission, well you spend some time on the Darwin worshiping threads and you will find you live in one of the most reviled places upon this earth by the evolutionists.

There is a vast amount of evidence here on these threads exposing what is thought of "free thinkers". I live across the state line from you and try NOT to provoke their wrath toooo often.

[Doc Savage]

"Is Evolution a flawed scientific theory that will never become an established LAW, or is neo-darwinism nothing more than wishful dogmatic socialistic ideology masquerading as science???????"

[txzman]

LOL - my thoughts too - e.g. - "When did you stop beating your wife?"

[js1138]

ID is the only non religious body of thought I have ever seen which is been so vociferously attacked and being denied an audience.

In what way is it scientific to assume that an unsolved problem has no solution?

[freeandfreezing]

"Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact based on the observed reality of the fossil record. There are theories about how it occurs. Natural selection is the most widely accepted theory of how evolution occurs.."

Unfortunately in modern education (and the mass media) evolution, natural selection, and abiogenesis are mixed together as a single concept. So Darwinian natural selection based evolution is seen as the explanation for the origin of life -- something even many evolutionary biologists would have a hard time supporting or justifying.

Natural selection clearly plays a major role in evolution, but it also isn't the only factor. The existence of domestic animals, like cows and dogs, certainly can't be explained by natural selection. Nor can the existence of modern commercial hybrid plant species. So clearly other factors are involved, at least since humans became active on the planet.

Interestingly, I know of no researchers today who can accurately define a test which can identify biological entities designed and created in labs by humans, which one would assume would be "intelligently" designed. If you can't identify a living genetically engineered and created organism how would you expect to know if other organisms were or were not "intelligently designed"?

There are also cases of simple organisms that modulate their development based on their environment - which is essentially Larmarckian evolution, although apparently the organisms retain the ability to grow into multiple forms. This ability, if widespread, adds quite a bit of complexity to the simple natural selection models.

And a theory which says "life must have begun as a result of a lot of random molecular interactions which ultimately ended up producing a living organism" isn't much of a theory. It really has no more basis than someone that says "life must have begun as a result of some space ship arriving on earth and leaving organisms here". Both rely on a long statistical chain of events. To really dig into the origin of life requires a very deep understanding of how molecular biology works, probably more than is now available.

Instead of schools wasting time fighting over what shallow "theory" or "fact" they teach, they should make an effort to teach the students about what the various theories really mean, and how one might go about testing, understanding or evaluating them. Hopefully those students will go on to advance our understanding of our world and how life began.

[Just mythoughts]

"As a Christian, I have an open mind. The Genesis stories were imported into Christianity carte blanc as part of the acceptance into the entire Bible of the cononized "Old Testament". Just as science is to be scrutenized for accuracy, so should be any scriptual writings of the past.

The decendants, from "Adam", just don't add up and stupidly indicate a "New Earth" and if we want to be critical of agnostic science, we should also be just as critical of what religious "truths" we accept as fact. Just because some past generation has "canonized" writings doesn't mean search for devine truth should be aborted. "

Christ was in the Beginning = Genesis, it is Christ that Christian are supposed to be following NOT what man traditions are.

Now man's tradition are that this earth is around 6,000 years old, yet NOWHERE is that Written in the Word from Genesis to Revelations, some flesh man conjured it up.

Now Christ was the only PERFECT human being ever born of flesh woman, and it is HE that provides the evidence that evolution is a LIE.

[PatrickHenry]

It's a good article. I donno if the list can stand yet another thread on the same old stuff.

Requesting opinions on whether to ping the list.

[wallcrawlr]

thanks for the heads up

[Coyoteman]

Then the theory is elevated to a fact, shutting down all rational discussion.

Theory elevated to a fact? Where did you study science? Here are some definitions--you may notice that a theory is the goal of science, while a fact is just a well-confirmed observation (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[js1138]

Natural selection clearly plays a major role in evolution, but it also isn't the only factor. The existence of domestic animals, like cows and dogs, certainly can't be explained by natural selection. Nor can the existence of modern commercial hybrid plant species. So clearly other factors are involved, at least since humans became active on the planet.

Of course Darwin got the idea of natural selection by observing artificial selection. He spent decades talking to animal and plant breeders. From these sources he was able to estimate the kinds and rates of variation that occurred.

From the observed rate of variation he was able to estimate the minimum age of the earth necessary to produce the variety of life now seen. His estimate was close to the currently accepted span since the Cambrian, and far more accurate than any estimate produced by the physics of his time.

[Sofa King]

"One of the problems with the Origins of the Species, is biologists have a CRAPPY definintion of what a species is."

That's because defining a specie, from an evolutionary standpoint, basically involves drawing arbitrary lines to break up a smooth continuum. 'Species' are a human-imposed division used to make classifying things easier for study. There is no absolute natural definition for one.

[oh8eleven]

what is being risked by letting it be falsified, like they were?
As the author states,"... there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false."

[Right Wing Professor]

Yeah, go ahead. it's not bad at all.