The pathetic "science" of "intellegent design"

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The pathetic "science" of "intellegent design"

A couple of weeks ago I watched a doco (intelligent design will be referred to as ID) ID on trial, it was about a court case  to determine if ID could be considered "Science" and therefore taught in American school, the result was that it was found that ID was simply creationism repackaged.

 

Also i have realized that there is no "theory of intelligent design", in fact that almost all "scientists" who work with ID spend their time not trying to gather evidence and develop theories (which is what science is all about) but simply to discredit evolution.

 

I would like to hear any of your thoughts on this and you opinions on ID or the fact that the definition of science, if stretched enough to include ID also includes astrology (star signs and tarot cards).

 

PS please do not just post things like " ID is a load of shit" as all intelligent people already know this.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ID does have a scientific

ID does have a scientific component: irreducible complexity. It was a great hypothesis for about a week. Then peer review proved it wrong. It's still great. We've gained as much or more from failed hypothesis as from successful ones. And as it happens, the fact that IC is not observed in any capacity anywhere means it became yet another proof of evolution.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
"ID" is not taken seriously

"ID" is not taken seriously even among some in the scientific community that do hold some sort of belief.

It is nothing more than Christian propaganda masked as science. It is uniquely a western Christian thing, but as soon as the other religions widely see this tactic, they will use it, and some have started to, use it to prove their gods as well.

"ID" is nothing but a political three card monty to play on the credulity and fear of the public to gain political power. It has nothing to do with replicating, falsifying or getting independent peer review. It is a movement, not science.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:other

Brian37 wrote:
other religions widely see this tactic

 

I have seen some Islamic videos in defence of ID on YouTube.

I beg your excuse for not feeling up to go searching for them to provide a link, though.

My personal feelings are reflected in a post in this same forum called "Unintelligent Design".

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Marquis wrote:Brian37

Marquis wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
other religions widely see this tactic

 

I have seen some Islamic videos in defence of ID on YouTube.

I beg your excuse for not feeling up to go searching for them to provide a link, though.

My personal feelings are reflected in a post in this same forum called "Unintelligent Design".

I think I already explained this.

I have seen Jews and Muslims try to mix their myth with science, admittedly those attempts have not hit the red carpet like the Christian attempts have in the west for the past 100 years. Give it time.

I can't give you links because those attempts were individual an don't have any wide popularity NOW.

AGAIN, if you have seen Islamic videos in defense of ID on Youtube, GREAT. I'd like to see this Muslim debate a Jesus fan about who was the "ID".

My point is it is like watching a Star Trek fan debate a Star Wars fan. I'm the guy on the outside laughing when neither consider that no "ID" is needed. Not only is it not needed, it is needlessly complex, not to mention absurd.

No matter what they argue, no matter the god they claim, they are still trying to defend a disembodied being with no brain, no neurons, no cerebellum, with magic powers,

This being call them Allah/Jesus/Yahweh or Vishnu or Thor. They still want lead you through buzz words and steal lagit lexicons from science to justify an agenda.

Christianity is the first recorded religion to widely be recorded as back peddling, but I am not surprised that Muslims or Jews or anyone for that matter , who defend these gangs are saying to themselves, "OH SHIT, SOMEONE IS PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN AND I DONT LIKE IT"

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Demon Lord (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
What do you mean by "I beg

What do you mean by "I beg your excuse"


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
He means

 

He knows some links but isn't up to hunting them down right know. And he begs you to excuse him for this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

I liked the part in the documentary when Ken Miller explained the flaw of Dembski's arguments that evolution is mathematically impossible.  Miller gave this example:  Imagine you are playing bridge with your friends.  You deal out 13 cards to all the people, and then everybody looks at their cards in utter amazement.  You say, "Wow, look at these cards!  We could deal cards for the rest of our lives and never get these same hands again..." 

But, you got the hand. 

Now, to Michael Behe.  The concept of irreducible complexity was proposed by Hermann Muller in 1918 as evidence for evolution.  Scientists accept that irreducible complexity exists.  Behe defines irreducible complexity correctly as a system wherein the removal of any part would cause the system to cease functioning, but he errs when he claims that the parts could not have had useful functions apart from the system.