The view from 2025: How Design beat Darwin

I'm sorry, it's just kind of funny to ponder the idea that a theory that has been around for about 150 years will magically go out of favor in the next 20.

Evolution is an attempt at a scientific explanation, however incomplete and imperfect it may be. Intelligent design may be very comfortable to some, but it doesn't even want to be scientific, at least not yet (IMO).

Knocking down evolution (which seems to be the ID'ers main thrust) does not elevate ID to the position of a scientific theory. Proof against theory A is not proof of the validity of Theory B.

{Flame Suit ON}

Intelligent design may be very comfortable to some, but it doesn't even want to be scientific, at least not yet (IMO).

Since there are number of highly qualified PhD's working in the Intelligent Design field, which part of it "doesn't even want to be scientific?" And, more basic than this question, what would you consider to be "scientific" when it comes to this kind of research?

That someone has a PhD next to their name doesn't, in and of itself, mean much to me. Lots of people with suspect intelligence have advanced degrees. I'm not suggesting that the PhDs you speak of are of suspect intelligence, but I do have a sis-in-law with a PhD, and she's not smart enough to recognize that her son's issues have to do with her hands off approach to parenting. Just by way of example, of course.

Most of what I have read regarding ID has to do with attempting to knock evolutionary theory, instead of advancing a scientific theory of ID.

As far as what it would take...something observable, something testable,something that adheres, at least in principle, to the scientific method. I think it is difficult to posit the existence of a designer and not be able to answer basic questions like, who is this designer and where does this designer operate his/her shop.

If you want to posit God as the designer, by all means do so. I have no issue with that at all; but I don't understand why the faithful need to make their faith appear scientific.

I believe that evolutionary theory suffers from many of the same issues, but there is at least some evidence that has been collected over the years that supports the theory of evolution. I am trying to figure out what evidence we can *observe* that supports ID.

"I'm sorry, it's just kind of funny to ponder the idea that a theory that has been around for about 150 years will magically go out of favor in the next 20."

Well, I don't know if "evolution" will be a dead issue in 20 years. However, I do know from the history of science that radical changes in science can occur very quickly. They are called "paradigm shifts." Although, I doubt there will ever be a paradigm shift towards "intelligent design", because it goes against the "religious atheism" found in the ranks of the majority of the scientific world. Many won't even consider the possibility that things didn't just "happen" that they are the work of an intelligent designer.

You might as well expect the ranks of journalism to suddenly become conservative - ain't gonna happen.

I am comfortably a creationist and see "intelligent design" as a more palatible choice for those that don't hold to literal Biblical interpretation (as I admit to), but still don't see how life can "spontaneously generate." But this will never "sell" to the hardcore atheist - never - it goes against their "religiously" held beliefs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.