Intelligent Design IS scientific

In a ‘scientific’ article on FoxNews, I read the following: “Dark energy is the name given to the ‘hypothetical force’ that could be drawing all the stuff in the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate.” (emphasis mine)

On this site, I hear proponents from two different theories debating the existence of a ‘hypothetical force’ called ‘gravity’, yet both theories are considered ‘scientific’.



Then I hear people make the statement that the Intelligent Design (ID) theory is ‘unscientific’.  The theory may have a debatable original premise: the existence of a ‘hypothetical force’ (i.e. a ‘Creator’) but the developed theory BASED upon a this premise is no less ‘scientific’ than evolution.  Both are theories, both have to make un-testable assumptions, and both try to develop an explanation for the cosmos we observe.

You may not believe in the existence of this ‘hypothetical force’ , but you CANNOT possibly convince me that ID is by any means less scientific than evolution.

6.5/10, would facepalm again.

both have to make un-testable assumptions.

Gravitation has been tested.

you CANNOT possibly convince me that ID is by any means less scientific than evolution.

"To the believer, no proof is necessary. To the non-believer, no proof is possible." - Derek Acorah
Cast aside your beliefs (for this discussion) and approach it with reason. Then we will continue.

In a ‘scientific’ article on FoxNews, I read the following: “Dark energy is the name given to the ‘hypothetical force’ that could be drawing all the stuff in the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate.” (emphasis mine)

On this site, I hear proponents from two different theories debating the existence of a ‘hypothetical force’ called ‘gravity’, yet both theories are considered ‘scientific’.



Then I hear people make the statement that the Intelligent Design (ID) theory is ‘unscientific’.  The theory may have a debatable original premise: the existence of a ‘hypothetical force’ (i.e. a ‘Creator’) but the developed theory BASED upon a this premise is no less ‘scientific’ than evolution.  Both are theories, both have to make un-testable assumptions, and both try to develop an explanation for the cosmos we observe.

You may not believe in the existence of this ‘hypothetical force’ , but you CANNOT possibly convince me that ID is by any means less scientific than evolution.

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.

"To the believer, no proof is necessary. To the non-believer, no proof is possible." - Derek Acorah

Very true.

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.
[/quote]

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

Gravitation has been tested.

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

We have observed evolution directly and plenty of evidence for evolution.

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 09:10:41 AM

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

No, the hypothesis for evolution was based on assumptions based on observations. Then predictions were made based on this theory. These predictions have held up. Therefore evolution is a theory based on everything required for it to be a theory. It has shown that it can even predict what will happen.

Can ID make predictions? Will it predict something that we will find? Has it predicted what will happen?

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 09:14:23 AM

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 09:10:41 AM

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

No, the hypothesis for evolution was based on assumptions based on observations. Then predictions were made based on this theory. These predictions have held up. Therefore evolution is a theory based on everything required for it to be a theory. It has shown that it can even predict what will happen.

Can ID make predictions? Will it predict something that we will find? Has it predicted what will happen?

Observations like scientists creating a fully functional first cell in a laboratory?
Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet.

Do you want scientists to assemble a planet in the lab as well? Some things can't be done immediatly, it takes decades of research and millions of dollars in funding.

Would that be a round one??

can I venture a guess that you're an American Christian, South of the Mason-Dixon line?

Evolution is based on the theory that, starting from abiogenesis, creatures on Earth continued to evolve into their present form. A theory which is backed up by our technological developments in the field of genetics. So we have a pretty solid and comprehensive theory backed up by evidence. Science.

ID on the other hand requires the pre-existence of a "creator" - of which we know absolutely nothing. While this is already pretty weak as theories go, it also completely lacks any kind of evidence. Furthermore, we are left with the question as to where the creator came from. Pure guess work, no evidence, more questions, not science.

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 09:14:23 AM

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 09:10:41 AM

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

No, the hypothesis for evolution was based on assumptions based on observations. Then predictions were made based on this theory. These predictions have held up. Therefore evolution is a theory based on everything required for it to be a theory. It has shown that it can even predict what will happen.

Can ID make predictions? Will it predict something that we will find? Has it predicted what will happen?

Observations like scientists creating a fully functional first cell in a laboratory?
Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet.

Surely, but would you settle for  cells ecolving in a laboratory environment?

can I venture a guess that you're an American Christian, South of the Mason-Dixon line?

American, yes.  Christian, unashamedly.  Born and raised in Colorado.

2 of 3 ain't bad...

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 09:22:18 AM

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 09:14:23 AM

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 09:10:41 AM

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

No, the hypothesis for evolution was based on assumptions based on observations. Then predictions were made based on this theory. These predictions have held up. Therefore evolution is a theory based on everything required for it to be a theory. It has shown that it can even predict what will happen.

Can ID make predictions? Will it predict something that we will find? Has it predicted what will happen?

Observations like scientists creating a fully functional first cell in a laboratory?
Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet.

Surely, but would you settle for  cells ecolving in a laboratory environment?

I understand that there are observable portions of the evolutionary theory.  It's the major challenges like abiogensis that leave huge holes that cannot be ignored.  Part of the reason some have come to believe in ID is from LACK of observance of spontanious life.

2 of 3 ain't bad...

Did I mention 'unashamedly'

Evolution is based on the theory that, starting from abiogenesis,

...so the theory STARTS with it's WEAKEST link.

The more 'science' has been applied to the challenge of spontanious life from non-life, the more we realize what an incredible miracle it really is!

Oops, did I say 'miracle'?? 

Then why is it that scientists have been making advances?

Thanks to science, Jesus can no longer kill children with small pox.

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 09:31:15 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 09:22:18 AM

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 09:14:23 AM

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 09:10:41 AM

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

No, the hypothesis for evolution was based on assumptions based on observations. Then predictions were made based on this theory. These predictions have held up. Therefore evolution is a theory based on everything required for it to be a theory. It has shown that it can even predict what will happen.

Can ID make predictions? Will it predict something that we will find? Has it predicted what will happen?

Observations like scientists creating a fully functional first cell in a laboratory?
Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet.

Surely, but would you settle for  cells ecolving in a laboratory environment?

I understand that there are observable portions of the evolutionary theory.  It's the major challenges like abiogensis that leave huge holes that cannot be ignored.  Part of the reason some have come to believe in ID is from LACK of observance of spontanious life.

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct. Animals, and humans evolve, and have evolved over the millenia they have existed, and will continue to evolve until the environment gets so extreme that all evolutionary branch-outs are killed.

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

Which isn't much, to begin with.

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

How does abiogenesis fail compared to ID?

Less.

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

actually abiogenesis has not failed at all. The conditions of the young earth are long past. Scientists can get amino acids that will begin duplicating themselves, and eventually the ones that replicate better become more populous.

The current state of our planet is not very hospitable to large amounts of amino acid. They tend to be broken down and such by organisms. Also considering the process took possible millions of years, how is a scientist supposed to do this in the lab, when the technology and idea to do this has only been around for decades, not millions of years?

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

I lol'd.

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

What creditibility?

By the way, abiogenesis != evolution != abiogenesis.

Also, dark energy != evolution != dark energy.

As for the first post, one of the main differences between Dark Energy and a hypothetical creator is that physicists are willing to try and find out whether they're right or wrong about dark energy and physicists know that dark energy is hypothetical. What ID proponent is willing to do that?

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

How does abiogenesis fail compared to ID?

The fact that we, highly motivated intellegent beings, cannot create a living cell, even in a laboratory.