Posted on 09/26/2009 8:51:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
There are a lot of false urban legends promoted in academia about intelligent design (ID). They often start with myths promoted by misinformed critiques in scientific journals, court rulings, or even talks by activists at scientific conferences. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for this misinformation to then be passed down to college students, who may know very little about ID and lack the resources to correct their professors’ misinformed and misplaced attacks on ID. Not anymore.
If you’re a college student, recently gone back to school and expecting to hear a lot of anti-ID views from your professors, we’re pleased to present this “Back to School Guide” for students...
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Ping!
Ping :o)
Indeed! Critical thinking about anything but Darwinism! Or how one recognizes design in what they observe or whether what is touted as evidence is really evidence of anything other than the narrative of Darwinism and so forth.
So someone tell me, how would you do an experiment to test for intelligent design?
Im now going to debate again.
By someone, would anyone do? Or must it be GGG?
If your ANOVA or MANOVA experiment requires a dependent variable labeled "deus ex machina" to work you probably are in the right neighborhood.
If you have an answer, please enlighten me.
An agent capable of making decisions about they will or will not do and carrying those decisions out and being fully aware of doing so.
So here’s the experiment. I put an arrow head in a paper sack and a similarly sized stone that I picked up from somewhere, anywhere goes in the sack too. Now you reach in and take out either one and tell me whether it is intelligently designed or not or if you are unable to say either way.
Not too hard so far, but now explain how you reasoned out your answer, the steps of logic, etc. you used.
So now that you’ve heard the experiment, which one did you mentally pick out and what is your answer to the steps of logic question and so forth?
As the expression goes, "arrowheads don't grow on trees."
Maybe on arrowhead trees? But that really has nought to do with my experiment. Thanks.
Suppose you found an acorn. Would you say, "Look at this amazing artifact! Someone must have made it!" No, you wouldn't, because acorns grow on trees. They are part of nature, just as rocks are part of nature. Didn't God make rocks?
Most of the Old and New Testaments are meant to teach good behavior. The creation Fairy tale is a very tiny part of the Bible. When the flock begins to hear ID, ID, ID, and more ID, they got to get out before they go crazy.
You’re free to join the experiment if you like.
If I had never seen an acorn or a tree I don’t know what I’d say. And one must not confuse design with origin as the question about God making rocks does.
Well, you have seen them, so what do you say now?
Of course, your arrowhead is just a version of Paley's "watch in the wilderness". His argument, and yours, is incoherent, however. The watch is placed in contradistinction to nature, and by analogy we are supposed to place nature in contradistinction to itself. It's a specious argument.
My experiment, I get to ask the questions. What does acorns and watches have to do with it?
"Under carefully controlled experimental conditions, the subject animal does what it damn well pleases."
Not much of an experiment. What's your hypothesis? Which result will support your hypothesis, and why? What variables have you controlled for--for example, do you have a way of distinguishing the conclusion of intelligent design from the actual presence of intelligent design?
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.