President's Science Advisor's view of Intelligent Design

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: mribnik1

Originally posted by: ahurtt
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.

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."

Exactly, waiting for something to be disproven which by definition cannot be disproven is rather pointless.

You say that you see a hypothesis "there was no intelligent design" but no proof. So you think that it, or rather it's negation, is a valid theory that hasn't been disproven yet, so it is still "in the race".

Problem is that "there was intelligent design" can never be disproven. Being falsifiable is however a requirement for "entering the race" in the first place. That is where you go wrong.

 

[0roo0roo]

intelligent design? its an incomplete name. its intelligent design theology and should be called as such. these people have been playing with words forever. call it what it is..theology

their tactics are shameless and rather like those of holocaust deniers

from "why people believe weird things" by michael shermer on the tactics of holocaust deniers

1. they concentrate on their opponents weak points while rarely saying
anything definitive about their own position.....

2. they exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing
arguements, implying that because a few of their opponents conclusions
were wrong, all of their conclusions must be
wrong.......

3. They use quotations, usually taken out of context, from prominent
mainstream figures to buttress their own position.....

4. they mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about
certain points within a field for a dispute aout the existence the
entire field. deniers take the intentionalist functionalist debate
about the development of the holocaust as an arguement about
whether the holocaust happened or not.

5. They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known.
emphasze data that fit and discount data that do not fit. deniers
concentrate on what we do not know about the gas chamber and
disregard all the eyewitness accounts and forensic tests that support
the use of gas chambers for mass murder

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
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.

Ok. Pretend you're a scientist right now. What observable, repeatable and predictable event will disprove intellegent design?

Until then, both are just theories.

How is ID a scientific theory?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: ahurtt
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.

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]

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.

We do know, but few people bother to spend the time to examine even a thousandth of the evidence out there. We have hundreds of lines of research, pursued by hundreds of thousands of researchers into evolutionary biology.

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.

ID creationism cannot be disproved, because evidence simply doesn't matter to it. God is omnipotent and thus could have created the universe 5 seconds ago as I was in the middle of writing this sentence, while giving the universe the appearance of billions of years of age.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Czar
No different than creationist ideas from all the religions in the world, trying to explain the unexplainable.

Like the beginning of the universe? What is the scientific explanation for that? Or, should I say, the scientific theory?

big bang

String theory.

And what causes each of these?

Can you explain what a cause means without using the concept of time?

If you can answer that question, I can explain what the cause of the Big Bang, which was the origin of spacetime, was. Otherwise, I'm not sure what cause means without the concept of before.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I'm fine with creationsim being tought in science class. Also teach greek mythology there. Makes sense to me! Hell, talk about photosynthesis in history and teach addition in gym class. Why not?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ahurtt
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.

you can keep an open mind... but to expect ID to be taught along side evolution is rediculous. if ID proponents want it to be, they need to start showing some proof.

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.

technically, i never said you said anything (you'll notice i said 'ID proponents' and not 'you'). but that's besides the point...

my point, which i admittedly didn't make very well, was that science is not really about keeping an open mind to anything that can't be disproven. you're certainly welcome to keep an open mind, but you're not being any more scientific by doing so.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ahurtt
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.

you can keep an open mind... but to expect ID to be taught along side evolution is rediculous. if ID proponents want it to be, they need to start showing some proof.

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.

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.

i take exception with your last sentence... ID is not as likely a candidate, considering the fact that there is evidence to support evolution, and no evidence to support ID. ID is as likely a candidate as anything else *that doesn't have any evidence to support it*. if ID people want to stop being attacked by science, they need to put up and show some evidence.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: conjur
Dr. Marburger: "Hello? Yes, this is he."

Caller: "You can go ahead and gather your things. Security will escort you from the building momentarily. We'll mail you your last paycheck."

I bet not. The Power Republicans don't give a rat's ass about ID and are happy to have feet on both sides of the fence as long as the ID people get some symbolic support and continue with the vote.

Bingo. The Dems could learn from this type of political manuevering. It's how elections are won. More to the point, the govt. shouldn't care about ID or evolution. Neither has anything to do with governing.

 

[0roo0roo]

thats bull. they continue to attempt passing laws and changing textbooks. its not something that won't affect people. how about we give equal time in text books to things like white supremist racial theory and holocaust denial too fine if your private, but in public schools? i think not.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Czar
No different than creationist ideas from all the religions in the world, trying to explain the unexplainable.

Like the beginning of the universe? What is the scientific explanation for that? Or, should I say, the scientific theory?

big bang

String theory.

And what causes each of these?

What caused the designer? Good try with the argument of first cause though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
thats bull. they continue to attempt passing laws and changing textbooks. its not something that won't affect people. how about we give equal time in text books to things like white supremist racial theory and holocaust denial too fine if your private, but in public schools? i think not.

You are confused again. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power over public schools? And while you're ridiculously invoking Godwin's law, I think you should be reminded that white supremacy was once a widely-accepted scientific principle.

 

[0roo0roo]

sorry, godwin isn't a real law.

and advocating for equal time in textbooks for holocaust denial has very real parallels to the current attempts to insert intelligent design theology into the science cirrculum based on "equal time" instead of validity.

and no white supremacy it wasn't a widely accepted truely scientific principal it was mostly a belief. it was science in name only, much like creation "science". and really by the standards of those who advocate creation "science" one would have to teach invalid white supremist racial "science" along with real science out of "fairness". so don't play that game.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
sorry, godwin isn't a real law.

and advocating for equal time in textbooks for holocaust denial has very real parallels to the current attempts to insert intelligent design theology into the science cirrculum based on "equal time" instead of validity.

and no white supremacy it wasn't a widely accepted truely scientific principal it was mostly a belief. it was science in name only, much like creation "science". and really by the standards of those who advocate creation "science" one would have to teach invalid white supremist racial "science" along with real science out of "fairness". so don't play that game.

What game? I'm not in favor of ID. I merely pointed out that Dems are being politically schooled, that's all. Hey, keep revisioning and polarizing... it's pretty funny.

 

[0roo0roo]

its not politics, its simply rational. if the democrats are being "politically schooled"..so be it. you have to stand up to irrationality even when unpopular. unlike the republicans who exploited bigotry and ignorance to the hilt in the past. remember the souther strategy? yes... race baiting their way into the current power they have right now.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Well until science satisfactorily and undeniably proves there was no intelligent design by...

it's not the job of science to disprove God. science stands on it's own.

 

[Gaard]

public schools teaching ID

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gaard
public schools teaching ID

I'm not in favor of ID, I'm just taking a devils advocate position here because your "they're flat earthers" argument is so flawed.

Isaiah 40:21-23

21 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Jakebrake
President's Science Advisor's view of Intelligent Design

Bush has a bad habit of ignoring the best advice he gets. He also ignored warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need 400,000 troops to do the job.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."

Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki.

In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

If only his idiot son could read!

If George W. Bush, Jr. is the result of any design, at all, it has to be UNintelligent design.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Jakebrake
President's Science Advisor's view of Intelligent Design

Bush has a bad habit of ignoring the best advice he gets. He also ignored warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need 400,000 troops to do the job.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."

Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki.

In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

If only his idiot son could read!

If George W. Bush, Jr. is the result of any design, at all, it has to be UNintelligent design.

Yet so many of the Bush (43) faithful will cry, with a straight face, "but nobody could have predicted what happened" with respect to Iraq. :roll:

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
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.

Evolution was proven. Type it in to google.

Intelligent design's only proof is in Genesis (which contradicts itself in the first two chapters).

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gaard
public schools teaching ID

I'm not in favor of ID, I'm just taking a devils advocate position here because your "they're flat earthers" argument is so flawed.

What's flawed about it? While the comparision leaves out the political nature of the ID creationist movement, it illustrates both groups' fundamental opposition to science when the facts don't support their faith.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gaard
public schools teaching ID

I'm not in favor of ID, I'm just taking a devils advocate position here because your "they're flat earthers" argument is so flawed.

What's flawed about it? While the comparision leaves out the political nature of the ID creationist movement, it illustrates both groups' fundamental opposition to science when the facts don't support their faith.

The those that where religious back in the day didn't beileve the earth was flat. They knew it was infact its round.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gaard
public schools teaching ID

I'm not in favor of ID, I'm just taking a devils advocate position here because your "they're flat earthers" argument is so flawed.

What's flawed about it? While the comparision leaves out the political nature of the ID creationist movement, it illustrates both groups' fundamental opposition to science when the facts don't support their faith.

The those that where religious back in the day didn't beileve the earth was flat. They knew it was infact its round.

No one has said that the religious believe in a flat Earth, and in fact, Vic was the first to use those words in this thread. I pointed out that comparing the ID creationists to flat Earthers is reasonable, as both groups are equally ignorant of science.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gaard
public schools teaching ID

I'm not in favor of ID, I'm just taking a devils advocate position here because your "they're flat earthers" argument is so flawed.

What's flawed about it? While the comparision leaves out the political nature of the ID creationist movement, it illustrates both groups' fundamental opposition to science when the facts don't support their faith.

The those that where religious back in the day didn't beileve the earth was flat. They knew it was infact its round.

No one has said that the religious believe in a flat Earth, and in fact, Vic was the first to use those words in this thread. I pointed out that comparing the ID creationists to flat Earthers is reasonable, as both groups are equally ignorant of science.

ID is just a new form of creationism, and as such is religion. Therefore, science neither proves nor disproves it. To science, it simply is not.
cquark, at best you are simply comparing apples and oranges again (which seems to be a favorite argument of yours). At worst, you sound like one of those scientically-ignorant types who thinks that science is the answer to everything and somehow disproves religion. If so, shall I compare you with a flat-earther?