Dr. John Marburger, President Bush's chief science advisor and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has once again clearly and publicly denounced the concept of intelligent design. Intelligent design is the neo-creationist critic of evolution. As reported in a recent issue of The American Prospect, Dr. Marburger made the statement in response to audience questions following an address at the National Association of Science Writers meeting. Dr. Marburger has previously defended the scientific merits of evolution. In 2004 during an online discussion with readers of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Dr. Marburger noted that evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
President's Science Advisor's view of Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Jakebrake
- Start date
Well until science satisfactorily and undeniably proves there was no intelligent design by demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt what really happened, I'm keeping an open mind. That's what science is all about, right? Discovering stuff based on hypothesis and then proving it or disproving it. So I see the hypothesis that there was no intelligent design but I have yet to see undeniable proof.
very true, keeping an open mind is what science is about but other theories that debunk old ones need to be based on science as well, not some oogly googly in the sky
ID is that oogly googly in the sky, no scientific background to back it up so it isnt valid any any stretch of the imagination.
CellarDoor
Golden Member
Keeping an open mind is a great thing. However, it's kinda hard to prove that something didn't happen when one will always respond with, "God works in mysterious ways."
homercles337
Diamond Member
Problem. ID is NOT scientific. It can not be held up to the same standards as real scince.
[edit] I should add that i think youre a hypocrite for believing in god and adhering to scientific principles at the same time [/edit]
Darkhawk28
Diamond Member
Fox News Alert: Dr. John Marburger is a child rapist and cheated on his taxes.
Next on the O'Reilly Factor!
Next on the O'Reilly Factor!
Well, first of all. . .I don't recall stating any opinion as to whether or not I thought it should be taught along side evolution or not. Anyway, people around here are really good at putting words in other people's mouths I've noticed. . .
As far as I can tell, the only way to disprove ID is to prove what really DID happen and show how we really did get here in such an undisputable way that everybody is forced to agree. But the facts as they stand today are, we really don't know what happened therefore you can't really discount anything, no matter how obsurd it may seem.
I really don't see why you felt the need for calling me a hypocrite when all I was saying was basically we don't really know one way or another so. . hey. . .I'm open to suggestions. Maybe you can't hold ID up to the standards of real science but then again real science has thus far failed to disprove it by showing what really did happen. The only way to disprove ID in this case is by demonstrating through the scientific process what really did happen. And we can't do that so far.
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
It's really simple, science works at proving theories, making them into laws, ID is based on "because we say so". What about the non-christian kids who are forced to go to school with this ID 'teaching', or aethists? Science doesn't care if your god is christian, buddhist, muslim or a small squirrel in the maple tree out back, you will learn the same thing from the same basis of thought, practice and scientific method.
so
http://www.venganza.org/
this is true and should be tought in american school because it cant be disprooven?
What the hell is it with people? Go F yourself man. I reiterate. . .what part of "I don't recall stating any opinion as to whether or not I thought it should be taught along side evolution or not" did you not understand??? I was just stating my personal view on the issue of ID vs. evolution which had nothing to do with whether or not either one should be taught in school. I don't really give a flying turd whether or not I got here by design or I evolved. I'm just saying, if science wants people who believe in ID to go away, then they better put up something more substantial than just theories and start proving some laws. Until then, both are just theories. It's just put up or shut up. Personally I'm on the fence about it. . .I could be persuaded either way. Until science proves ID never happened (by proving what really did happen), I will continue to believe that it may be a possible explanation for how we got here. Until there is some proof, ID is just as likely a candidate as anything else no matter how implausible it may seem.
ah, sorry, my bad
but... evolution and the creation of the universe are scientific theories, ID on the other hand is not a scientific theory but a theoratic one. So comparing them on the same level is just impossible. ID needs to proove itself scientificly for anyone to take it seirously as science, untill then its just another idea of the creation of the universe, it is just a modern one. No different than creationist ideas from all the religions in the world, trying to explain the unexplainable.
but... evolution and the creation of the universe are scientific theories, ID on the other hand is not a scientific theory but a theoratic one. So comparing them on the same level is just impossible. ID needs to proove itself scientificly for anyone to take it seirously as science, untill then its just another idea of the creation of the universe, it is just a modern one. No different than creationist ideas from all the religions in the world, trying to explain the unexplainable.
That's not how science works though, science simply provides us with a way to come up with the most likely explanation for the way things are. That isn't to say something else can't be true, but we can only go based around what we know right now. And despite what people might believe, right now science tells us evolution is the best explanation. It doesn't say ID isn't true, but it doesn't support it at all either. A hypothesis, ID people to the contrary, is not just some random guess. It's based on observation and scientific reasoning. Without scientific support, alternative explanations are just a guess...not even a hypothesis.
We really only have two choices here. Either we believe in the scientic process as an ongoing pursuit of facts and explanation, accepting its current explanations as valid as far as we know, while agreeing that those explanations aren't set in stone...or we just dismiss what science tells us and believe any old thing because it might be true.
The bottom line in this debate is that the scientific process would never produce the concept of intelligent design, at least not with what we know right now. ID was adapted from creationism because the former sounds more scientific, but neither were developed as part of a scientific process. And at the end of the day, that means they aren't science. It doesn't mean they can't be true, it just means we shouldn't treat them the same way as we treat evolution.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
