Intelligent Design: 'The Death of Science?'

Post Reply New Topic

Intelligent Design: 'The Death of Science'

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/05 ... ience.html

By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 23 September 2005
12:01 am ET

Sorry, this is tangential to your very informative post.
Has anyone seen the French film about penguins the christian ID lobby is so hot on? It's not here yet, could you give us an idea of what's new in it?

My local school board descideded that if intellegent design is taught all other religious theories had to be covered including but not limited to the great turtle, the star women, children without parents, vishnu, and a few others. Really ticked off the fundamentalists.

You forgot Flying Spaghetti Monsterism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

So often ID people privately believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis but don't admit to it. Though I am intrigued by theories about the origin of life which may leave room for God, most of them are really unsound when examined up close. Go to www.talkorigins.org for a thurough debunking of just about every Creationist/ID claim. I don't think it's even remotely true that they will topple evolution. The most they could do is raise some good questions that evolutionists will adequately answer, but they won't succeed in making ID a valid science.

I dont neccessarily believe they should teach intelligent design but they should definetly point out the "tornado through a lumberyard theory."

PS that site seems to point out that it could happen not neccessarily that it would and not neccessarily that we have ever seen anything similiar happen/caused anything similiar to happen.

I think that both views should be given equal time as that is what true science does.

Occam's Razor quietly and quickly kills off so-called "Intelligent" Design on the basis of that if you have to invent something that can't be proven to base your theory upon then you're introducing unnecessary complexity. In other words, "Inteliigent" Design (no Christian fundamentalists, you're not scientists after all) should stand on it's own two feet with or without any God-figure working overtime to ensure bacteria find Nylon tasty.

Occam's Razor:

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

If a multitude of species and variety of DNA can be explained by simple evolution then that idea is most likely correct.

quod erat demonstrandum

Although no fan of Creationism in any form, I would be pleased if Darwin was knocked off his pedistal at some point in the near future!! !

The reason I give for this is not because I object to the idea that people may have originated from apes in some way. Rather it is Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" ideas that have been used since the 19th Century to justify some of the worst cimes commited in Human history.

These theories put forward by Darwin were used by the elite of the time to justify their obscene wealth. Cruelty to slaves was justified by the notion of the super-race of White Europeans who were "superior" to the blacks. The ruling classes decided that killing off the poor was the best way to advance society, and encouraged the spread of disease amongst poorer areas of cities.

This philosophy is still rampant in the US today, but in Western Europe it was killed off early in the Twentieth Century by a long line of progressive thinkers and politicians, starting with Gladstone and Chadwich, and stretching all the way to the leaders of modern liberal parties in Europe today.

However, in Germany it persisted until 1945. Hitler apparently studied Darwin's works in the 1920's and 1930's before coming to power. He used much of it to form his philosophy of fascism (extreme Darwinism) and the fact that the Jews were an "inferior" race.

No, 'true science' does not give both views equal time.

The problem is that the word 'theory' in vernacular has a different meaning in scientific terms. In vernacular people use the word theory to mean opinion or belief. To understand what the word theory means in science, one must understand the scientific process.

First a person starts out with an observation. Then he or she collects the data. Using that data he or she creates a hypothesis. Then the person tests the hypothesis to try to disprove it. When or if the hypothesis can be or is disproven, it is revised. Then it is tested again. Once it cannot be disproven it becomes a theory. That is what a theory is.

A theory in science could basically be considered a fact. For example, gravity is actually just a theory. That is why I find it so amusing when fundamentalists talk about people who 'believe in evolution'. It is like talking about all those people who 'believe in gravity'.

Intelligent design has nothing to do with science, it cannot even be considered a hypothesis. Science says that natural phenomena is caused by natural means. In other words, it disregards the supernatural and supernatural explanations, because it cannot be proven.

I saw a fantastic quote a while ago: 'Intelligent design is neither.'

Hmm, true to a point. The problem comes when evolution is given as the end all and people start referring to it as fact, even though it is not. Unfortuately this is never going to be solved anytime soon. I still find it difficult to accept evoluion based on irreducible complexity and host of other evidence. Also, some of the evolutionist dogma has been challenged and then people shout at them for challenging thier ideas. The majority is not always right, as has been proven by science for a long time. BTW, I think that it is totally possible for one to be religious and a scientist.

People should always try challenging ideas for the puropse of advancing ourselves. Science accpets criticism. However, if people are challenging evolution by claiming that intelligent design should be accepted as a theory, then the scientific community does have a right to be outraged. Intelligent design is philosophy, not science.



Of course, it is totally possible. No one ever said it wasn't. It crosses the line when people bring their personal (and unproven) beliefs into their work.

Perhaps, but not a fundamentalist.

There is a very good series of articles on Fundamentalism (religious and scientific) in this week's New Scientist (8th October) for anyone who is interested.

Don't blame Darwin, he was ok, it was the people reading him that brought their own baggage to the fray. As far as Darwin was concerned evolution had to be possible in both directions ( up and down the evolutionary tree if you like) modification could be reversed or new mutation take place. The religious establishment had more to do with the social-darwinism you mention, they like to set up straw dolls to throw stones at. It also caught on with the right wing, but they "lost" the idea of adapting to environment and introduced their own ideas of unidirectional progress, aspiration to perfection and social correctness.
Leave Darwin alone!!

Here is some facts we should remember.

Over centuries even Christians were Scientists. Even they made discoveries in the sciences, maths, and medicines.

Even some Scientists even today are Christian.

Just some thing to remember.

OK

Science classes teach science -- that is, the currently held theories and principles that govern the scientific world. Once new ideas gain wide acceptance in the scientific community (as they have in the past), they are taught as science.

I figure if ID is good enough to be taught in science classes, it's good enough to stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific community, and it hasn't really.