What is scientific about ID?

Post Reply New Topic

it isn't about winning. religion started this whole science vs religion thing because religion was losing relevance in the world and so opposition to anything that might prove their religious texts to be an inaccurate interpretation of the world becomes their M.O.



again...very romantic but still wrong. science doesn't need religion. atheists and agnostics are moral people too. just not attached to archaic texts that have less and less relevance on our world today. again back to the 100 years ago vs today...but now add in 2000 years ago vs today...there's hardly any kind of value to be gotten from it beyond common sense morality that can be acquired anywhere and not just under religious contexts.

religion needs science to die and for their followers to return in full to the flock....their income is starting to dwindle.

inherit the wind: it's religion that attacks science for going agains the creation story.

galileo proving the earth is not the center of the universe: again going against the creation story and so religion attacks.


science needs to have less religion around it because all religion does is try to stifle and stop science and stop progress.

If skeptical view is defined by sets of rules,then it is not skepticism,but dogma.




And who is to say what is 'proof' and 'evidence'?

fudging around with semantics doesn't mean you win. it just means you're a jerk who's good with playing with words. i don't play around.

That isn't always true. Not across the board.

Insulin and pasteurized milk were not repressed by any kind of religion.

Most medical advances do not fall within that realm. Better medicine is something the religious people need, as well.

I should have said this before, "I am not a follower of the church as much as I am a follower of Jesus Christ. The church as an entity is pretty corrupt and not a thing to be defended abslolutely.

If religion needs science dead, and science DID die, that would mean regression to the Middle Ages. IF religion rolled over and died at the long behest of science, where would our morality come from? Science has no inherent morality. Experimenation on animals by cosmetics companies attests to that.

I dunno, a society of science would be .... heartless. What would stop us from becoming the Borg? What would keep us human?

http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/3002





Besides that claim that Earth is the center of universe is claim made by Ptolemy and Aristotle(before Christianity),and was later adopted by Church.

How can "we can't figure out how this originated so it must have been God" ever be science?

This debate is very interesting, to say the least.

It won't. Not ever. And I'm totally fine with that, glad for it actually.

ID was philosophically disproven by Hume over two and a half centuries ago. That people continue to cling to it boggles the mind. What would you do if someone came up and started lucidly discussing the existence of the tooth fairy in front of you? You would think they're f*****g nuts. Religion is no different, and the fact that these people affect public policy is extremely scary.

How was David Hume able to debunk ID and be so sure? Does that mean there is definitely no rhyme or reason in all the universe? And if so, how can one man come to know that?

I don't consider ID to be an argument for God, actually. I don't see it as an argument for Creationism, either. IMO Intillgent Design is just a fancy way of saying, "Observable phenomena make sense because they are observable and the principles behind them do not change."

Jeezly crow. I don't understand why some people on WP can't tolerate other points of view. Rabidly can't tolerate them, or even the people who have the temerity to express them in a free exchange of ideas like WrongPlanet. There isn't just one kind of bigot, apparently.

And from an earlier message:

So you are a busy man, you don't want to argue about the topic of this thread, you don't want to uphold standards of debate, you don't want to convince me of anything. Why are you here? What is worth the time to write so much in this thread if nothing in it interests you?


I sent you the private messages in mid January. They sat in my "Out Unread" box until I deleted them in March. The second message had the offer in the title, so if at any time during those six weeks you looked in your Inbox, you must have seen the offer. If you didn't read any messages during that time you missed it then, but you know it now.


I don't intend a mile-long debate, there are some possible benefits for me, and I can imagine some for you, though whether you agree is another matter. You pointed out

That means most of us have some communication difficulties, though in my experience that is a lot less pronounced with written communication. The level of misunderstandings between us I have previously experienced in social, face-to-face situations, but never before in written discussions about topics related to science and logic. I like to know the source of misunderstandings, so I can see how much I can do to avoid them. I also seem to have annoyed you right from the beginning. I would be interested in knowing how that happened. Although I expect you intend to be impartial, you are correct that I do not think you have always been impartial. Whether you agree or not, it might be useful for you to know how you gave that impression, so that you have a choice. Being on an autistic message board means that many of us can benefit from that sort of exchange. If you think that might be worth your time, let me know, public or private, as you please.

Last edited by Gromit on 28 Apr 2008, 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Witt has a job, ska. A job and a life.

Get a life and quit being an asshat.

I indeed have PM from January,but not from you.


Judging from my experience with Wrong planet,I doubt that...
But lets agree to disagree...


I actually have quite opposite impression.



Feelings are mutual.

I haven't been here quite some time...
Since you have intervened on several occasions in my debates with others,I just wanted to return same courtesy on your thread.
On other hand,now I think thats was childish mistake,and mistake is all mine.



These are actually quite good questions Gromit,and this time I fully agree with you.


I indeed have no much time to debate here on in other places,and I will therefore stop.

After all this is your thread,and I will therefore leave you to discuss with other people.
This is my last post in here.

As I said,my mistake.

My apologies for 'intervening'.

I didn't say it is science, which claim would be absurd since God isn't visibly in a laboratory.
So, object to what I said, not to what I didn't say please.
I challenged your over-the-top claim that ID "cannot be science".
That claim all depends on how one defines science -- which depends upon which scientist is speaking at the time.
If God does something over and over again in a predictable way, like the devine intervention that believing Christians throughout the world see Him doing, then how could they rationally deny that? Science is about what can rationably be determined. Like I said before, if your brand of "science" is too short-sighted to notice God -- the Being who is everywhere and everywhen, His work being clearly visible in all Creation in the universe -- then that is science's problem, and it needs to bring itself up to date. In other words, in such a case, God's obvious existence invalidates that short-sighted brand of "science" -- not the other way around, as you imply.



No, it falls under my honest opinion. And I can back it up. One hestitates to waste the time, though.

You challenged AwesomelyGlorious, not me, I was merely curious about your reason. And now I see I misunderstood you, and I am far more curious about what you mean. You are saying ID is absolutely not science, but are you also saying it could be science?


Would you please use the criteria I put in my first post? They are that a scientific theory should describe things that should happen if the theory is true and things that should not happen, and the predictions should be testable (I find probabilistic predictions acceptable if there is a valid statistical test). I think these are very orthodox criteria.


That's the first time someone tells me that divine intervention keeps happening in a predictable way. Could you tell me more? What is predictable about it? The method? The occasion? Both? Does the divine intervention break natural laws? (I am not being sarcastic, I really have never heard or read this before.)

I am not sure divine intervention that breaks natural laws is theologically sound. I'm sure you know the old question whether an omnipotent God can create an object too heavy for him to lift. The answer I have read is that God can do anything that is not a logical paradox, and the existence of both an immovable object and an irresistible force would be a paradox. We might have a similar logical paradox if God creates a universe that follows logically consistent rules, and then God violates them to intervene, creating a situation in which something has to occur because that's how the universe works, but it can't occur because God is doing something else. You might say God didn't create a logically consistent universe. That would only resolve the paradox if a logically inconsistent universe can exist. I can't tell you that, we'd need a good physicist or mathematician for that.


In principle that's possible, but the same claims could be made for anything else, from unicorns and fairies at the bottom of the garden to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you apply your argument to anything that anyone can imagine, you end up with an X-files scenario, where you are obliged to believe everything because if you can't see something, that only proves your methods are not good enough. The argument could be used for things that would contradict Christian theology. You could end up with another paradox, having to believe statements that contradict each other. Do you have a way of preventing that?

Faith eludes so many of us because it is a frustration of logic,
vis-a-vis the Aspie mentality. Aspies are wired to be ruthless in their logical analyses. The capacity for faith is on a whole other plane than logical analysis. If this concept can't be grasped, it is ridiculed and dragged through the mud. Whoever is incapable of faith feels obliged to sh*t on it, which is totally uncool.