Intelligent Design

Nephythys · 11-09-2005, 02:31 PM

I disagree- that it is hooey and also that it can not be compatible with science. But hey- that's just me.

Ghoulish Delight · 11-09-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I disagree- that it is hooey and also that it can not be compatible with science. But hey- that's just me.

Where in the definition of science does "We give up, it's too complicated to figure out, therefore it must be a supernatural force" fit? Is the existence of an intelligent creator a hypothesis that can be tested by a repeatable experiment or demonstrated by physical evidence? If not, then it's not science.

Alex · 11-09-2005, 02:57 PM

Probably goes without saying that I think ID is hooey (because I think all religion is hooey). But it is also not science.

It offers up not predictions about the world around us, it explains nothing (insofar as "it is unknowable" is not an explanation) and as preferred by most proponents, it requires an actor that exists outside the physical laws of the universe and therefore to enter it into scientific discussion would render all science meaningless because one of the fundamental axioms of scientific exploration is that the laws of the universe are constant across the universe and time (not that they haven't changed, but that when they have it is do to other purely physical forces). All intelligent design does is refute another theory and if Darwinian evolution is incorrect (in its basic principles, many more minor elements of his theory have been refined or changed over the last 150 years) there is already a process discussed in science classes for discovering that falseness and it doesn't require simply shrugging your shoulders and saying "god is a tricksy."

Why is intelligent design only offered for debate in biology classes? If true, it would be equally shattering to every realm of science tought in schools. It would redefine chemistry, physics, the earth sciences, mathematics, and every discipline built upon these. The founders of Intelligent Design have discovered a scientific methodology have "evidence" of a fundamental fact of the universe so tremendous as to undo centuries of scientific examination and they just want to apply it to biology? And not even all of biology (I'm guessing "because someone made it that way" is not the answer they'd want to "why does aspirin work") but just to one subfield of biology. No, not even to a subfield but rather just one aspect of one subfield of one field of scientific exploration.

They get their knickers in a bunch over room 103 talking about non-deitic origins in life but don't seem to care that in 104 they are talking about non-deitic origins for matter and energy.

It's kind of like inventing the wheel and then only ever using it to make lazy susans.

Gemini Cricket · 11-09-2005, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It offers up not predictions about the world around us, it explains nothing (insofar as "it is unknowable" is not an explanation) and as preferred by most proponents, it requires an actor that exists outside the physical laws of the universe and therefore to enter it into scientific discussion would render all science meaningless because one of the fundamental axioms of scientific exploration is that the laws of the universe are constant across the universe and time (not that they haven't changed, but that when they have it is do to other purely physical forces).

Longest sentence ever. Just kidding. (I won't insert a smilie here, I know how much you hate them.)

I agree totally with you, Alex. Damn you eloquent people. (wink smilie)

It does sound like the Intelligent Design answer to every science question would be 'God made it so that's why'. And that just isn't good enough for me.

Ghoulish Delight · 11-09-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It's kind of like inventing the wheel and then only ever using it to make lazy susans.

But the lazy susan is so amazing, so powerful, and so complicated, clearly it was crafted by an as-yet-unamed mystical being.

Quote:

I'm still rooting for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Behold his noodleyness!

11-09-2005, 02:31 PM	#1
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	I disagree- that it is hooey and also that it can not be compatible with science. But hey- that's just me.
	Submit to Quotes

11-09-2005, 02:57 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Probably goes without saying that I think ID is hooey (because I think all religion is hooey). But it is also not science. It offers up not predictions about the world around us, it explains nothing (insofar as "it is unknowable" is not an explanation) and as preferred by most proponents, it requires an actor that exists outside the physical laws of the universe and therefore to enter it into scientific discussion would render all science meaningless because one of the fundamental axioms of scientific exploration is that the laws of the universe are constant across the universe and time (not that they haven't changed, but that when they have it is do to other purely physical forces). All intelligent design does is refute another theory and if Darwinian evolution is incorrect (in its basic principles, many more minor elements of his theory have been refined or changed over the last 150 years) there is already a process discussed in science classes for discovering that falseness and it doesn't require simply shrugging your shoulders and saying "god is a tricksy." Why is intelligent design only offered for debate in biology classes? If true, it would be equally shattering to every realm of science tought in schools. It would redefine chemistry, physics, the earth sciences, mathematics, and every discipline built upon these. The founders of Intelligent Design have discovered a scientific methodology have "evidence" of a fundamental fact of the universe so tremendous as to undo centuries of scientific examination and they just want to apply it to biology? And not even all of biology (I'm guessing "because someone made it that way" is not the answer they'd want to "why does aspirin work") but just to one subfield of biology. No, not even to a subfield but rather just one aspect of one subfield of one field of scientific exploration. They get their knickers in a bunch over room 103 talking about non-deitic origins in life but don't seem to care that in 104 they are talking about non-deitic origins for matter and energy. It's kind of like inventing the wheel and then only ever using it to make lazy susans.
	Submit to Quotes