Intelligent Design POLL

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by Quester

I have not seen ID claimed as a science, but instead offered as an explanation of physical phenomenae which cannot be explained by scientific means.

stage 1) notice some physical phenomenae that science has not yet explained probably due to insufficient resources.
stage 2) conclude 'science doesn't know yet'
stage 3) therefore it must be god / ID.

Originally Posted by Quester

if there is no clear answer for either side, the preponderance of evidence is the only thing to rely on.

when the day comes that all events are understood and explained, that is the day this argument will disappear. until then, neither side can claim to be ''scientific''.

Hows this for evidence. Almost every battle between ID supporters (religious nutters trying to do their bit for Jesus by spreading disinformation and ignorence) and scientists has later been proven to be as the scientists explain. I think the score is about 150,000 - 0 to science over religion / ID.

ID theororists are like nagging babies who constantly ask stupid questions until the parent just gives up and then, when they reach the point say 'see I know whilst you don't, it's god', only to later find out that it was not god so they start the process again. The trick is to overwhelm the science community with stupid questions.

Asking stupid questions is not 'scientific'. 'Scientific' is going out with measuring instruments and coming up with new theories until you can fully explain the mechanisms behind what you were discovering. Just annoying scientists with 'do you know this yet, do you know that yet' is not scientific. I'm afraid, dare I say it, scientists do have a monopoly on science as there is zero science or useful explanation coming from ID theorists.

Lets do the 'am I a use to humanity' test. Evolution has been used to find literally thousands of new chemicals and life saving drugs / vacines and many other fantastic discoveries. As have almost every scientific theory (quantum theory, computers and semi conductors; nuclear physics, nuclear power / fusion; etc). 'I don't know, therefore it must be god' has only given humanity an excuse to argue and kill each other. Fundementally nothing useful (ie actually usable) has ever come of it, nor will ever come of it. So do we really want to teach things that religious nutters call science that has no use to mankind whatsoever?

[questor]

Ugh, i don't quite know what to say. perhaps your theory would be better understood if you were not so commited to bash ID. why not just forget your objections to ID for a moment and explain your theory clearly so it can stand on its own merit?

[ughaibu]

Questor: The point of my theory is, how it compares with intelligent design. I am trying to communicate to you, that even as hare-brained a theory as the one I presented, is clearly better than intelligent design. Intelligent design really is that bad, and I think it's a crying shame that you're wasting your passion on something so vapid and inconsequential. The world is full of fascinating ideas, intelligent design is not one of them.

[questor]

Buffy, you must have perched on something rather sharp, or so your attitude
suggests. i am not a member of any ID or Creationist groups or societies, nor have i read any of their literature. i have specifically said and repeated on several threads and many posts that i do not ascribe to man made religions as a belief system. i do have the ability to observe natural things as i see them and am able to inquire as to things neither i or ''scientists'' understand. i have specifically stated many times that i do not argue with the thought of religion as a guide and i make it a point not to use the word God or any religious claims in my arguments. i have also said i do not believe creationism should be taught as a science. you can believe what you like based upon your own criteria, i will believe what i like based upon mine. as i have stated, there is no ''science'' to views for or against intelligent creation of the universe.
you said: ''So, arguments such as this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by questor...
when the day comes that all events are understood and explained, that is the day this argument will disappear. until then, neither side can claim to be ''scientific''.
...are a gross and self-serving misstatement of the scientific method: it is a claim that any view is possible because there is doubt about existing theories, and nothing is scientific until everything is known. That serves the purposes of those who wish to use science to prove the "truth" of their personal belief systems, but it harms science and the intellectual progression of mankind.''
this is a non-sequitur statement. it does not describe what i said nor what i think. the word science is from the Latin scientia, which means to know. as i said, when all events are understood and explained, the truth will be known.
truth is the desired goal of all science. i hope you feel better.

[questor]

Ugh, the passion on this subject is yours, not mine. my interest is curiosity about the thought process and positive statements made against ID when there is no evidence against it and there are many reasons to think ID is present in the operation of the universe. as usual, if you have good reasons for your disbelief in ID,let's hear them in your own words.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by questor

Ugh, the passion on this subject is yours, not mine. my interest is curiosity about the thought process and positive statements made against ID when there is no evidence against it and there are many reasons to think ID is present in the operation of the universe. as usual, if you have good reasons for your disbelief in ID,let's hear them in your own words.

There are fifteen pages of rebuttal in this thread alone.

TFS

[ughaibu]

Questor: Okay, it's your life. But please stop claiming that nobody understands you, it's insulting, as intelligent design is a very simple idea, also, please stop claiming that nobody answers you, you have had arguments objecting to intelligent design from several people, and rather than contesting those arguments, your typical response has been either "I'm not impressed" with no further explanation or silence, finally, please stop claiming that nobody offers alternative possibilities, there are shelves of books detailing theories of cosmology, mathematical physics and evolution, further to which, I have now provided you with a sample theory complete with a detailed explanation of why it is superior to intelligent design.

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by questor

this is a non-sequitur statement. it does not describe what i said nor what i think. the word science is from the Latin scientia, which means to know.

Excuse me, did you say at the time you were speaking latin. No you didn't. You were speaking ENGLISH and in ENGLISH, 'science' means the study of the natural world, not 'to know' nor to 'pretend an intelligent being ie god did all the work so we can just sit down and say we know it all the lazy way'.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

Buffy, you must have perched on something rather sharp, or so your attitude suggests.

Naw, I'm sitting out on a chaise in a meadow looking at the snow on the mountains. Its really not all about you and I'm sorry you took it personally. I don't consider you a defender of ID, but to the extent that *some* of your own views are similar to ID, the same arguments in response apply. That's something that can't be avoided!

Originally Posted by questor

as i have stated, there is no ''science'' to views for or against intelligent creation of the universe.

True! So far! But to keep with your ongoing theme, only insofar as "creation" is defined as the instant before the Big Bang. We've got some pretty solid theories all the way down to bang + 10^-40 or so. ID spends a lot of time trying to say that we *must* talk about "first causes" and that's where your argument crosses paths with ID: insofar as science has nothing to say about those "first causes" it is a misappropriation of the word science to say that because it does not answer the question of the first cause, it is therefore not science. You're of course free to use the word science however you want to, but if you stray from the most widely accepted understanding of the word, do not expect that you should not be challenged, especially when your definition is indeed self-serving.

It means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less,
Buffy

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

There are fifteen pages of rebuttal in this thread alone.

Its arguably gone astray from its original purpose. I'll give everyone 24 hours to say their peace and I will close it.

Start new threads folks...

Evolutionary Mom,
Buffy