Replies

>>Yet, at every freaking turn, they shut down anything that provides even an inkling of possibility to address their demands…<<

There are all kinds of theories that did not get immediate acceptance. For every Brownian motion that quickly makes sense there is a Debroglie wave length which does not.

This is overcome by presenting indisputable evidence.

The problem with ID, from a scientific point of view is that it basically boils down to a philosophical argument - that the universe is so complex and beautiful that God must have had a hand.

Now, I believe that. But its not science.

And so far, the leading ID people have focused either on claiming conspiracy, or making ludicrous arguments (like irreducible complexity), or just been outright dishonest - like the Discovery Insitute’s attempt to discredit science or the Evolutionaryinformatics attempt to use out of context quotes like the one by David Wolpert when they know that Wolpert thinks Dembski is wrong and dishonest.

That’s not the approach to take if one really believes that they can show the hand of God.

This is very odd to me as a Christian since the bible is clear that faith will always be required and that God almost never provides repeatable proof, except in our hearts.

The problem with ID, from a scientific point of view is that it basically boils down to a philosophical argument - that the universe is so complex and beautiful that God must have had a hand.

Now, I believe that. But its not science.

This is the problem with people who do not read ID literature. They create a strawman and then seek to debunk it.

Here is what the Discovery Institute says about ID :

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

THAT's ALL THERE IS TO IT !

NO MENTION OF GOD, THE BIBLE, ALLAH or any religion.

ID is NEUTRAL and even AGNOSTIC or SILENT about who the Designer(s) is/are. It does not even purport to IDENTIFY the designer(s).

Here is what the Discovery Institute says :

" Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

Furthermore:

Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same"in Research News & Opportunities.

"The problem with ID, from a scientific point of view is that it basically boils down to a philosophical argument - that the universe is so complex and beautiful that God must have had a hand. Now, I believe that. But its not science." - gondramB

That's completely backwards. ID explains the origin of data, of design, of life. When a man in a lab inserts a gene into an animal, we have Intelligent Design...we have a new life form such as a pig that produces human growth hormones.

That's science. Moreover, ID is a falsifiable theory. Where there is no bias in a system, there is no ID and can not be any ID.

But the same can't be said for Evolution. There is no published, peer-reviewed criteria for falsifying the Theory of Evolution.

So it's Evolution that isn't scientific because it can't be falsified.

...and because Evolution isn't scientific, it must be propped up by non-scientific means such as shutting down anyone who challenges it.

Hence, the article for this thread. QED.