Q#3 Why I think ID is not a scientific theory

[TomPJr]

This entire discussion is about naturalism (materialism) vs. super-naturalism (dualism).

It is a very old philosophical debate.

The problem that IDers get into is that they think that science may possibly be, for some reason, in the realm of super-naturalism, or dualism. This is SIMPLY INCORECT.

SCIENCE is the study of the NATURAL WORLD. While science my contribute an immense amount to our world, it is NOT SYNONOMOUS WITH TRUTH. It is the study of the world WITH AN ASSUMPTION of materialism.

That being said, evolution is science, and intelligent design is NOT. PERIOD. That doesn't mean that intelligent design isn't true. I just means that it is NOT SCIENCE.

If you disagree with evolution, fine. You have the abilty to do the following:

1)CONDUCT INDEPENDENT RESEARCH

2)PERFORM LABRATORY EXPERIMENTS

3)CONDUCT FIELD STUDIES

4)SUBMIT PAPERS for peer review.

NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU from doing ANY of these four things, but THESE THINGS ARE SCIENCE!

If you REFUSE to do these four things, stop calling your theories scientific. THEY ARE NOT! It is like going up to a the United Nations, declaring yourself a nation, when you have no land, no flag, and no history as a nation, then wondering why they don't admit you to the UN.

Evolution explains things in the natural world USING ONLY THE NATURAL WORLD. Whether you "agree" with it or not, it actually does a good job at doing what it's supposed to do: explain the natural world using only natural phenomena. Intelligent design explains the natural world with SUPER-NATURAL explanations! This immediately disqualifies it from being in the domain of science.

If you don't like it, it's not evolution you have a problem with: it's SCIENCE.

I agree with you that ID is not Science, but I have a problem with something that you said...

You said that Evolution is science. That statement is quite false nad dangerous. Evolution is a Religion. There is no scientific observable evidence of evolution. Okay...wait...let me step back a minute... We must clarify the definition of evolution. Are you talking about micro-evolution, or Macro-evolution.

micro-evolution - is subtle variations or adaptaions of a species. (There is no change in species or kind from one to another)

an example of this is a certain species of moths that had black moths and white moths in the same family. they lived in a big city with lots of smog. Eventually all the white moths got eaten by preditors and the black ones survived because of their camoflauge. This is micro evolution and is observable.

Macro-evolution - is totally un-observable and take faith to believe in. There is absolutely no evidence of the big bang, or how the life began, other than scientists biased ideas. We do not come from apes, or dinosours or an amoeba, or a rock...how absurd.

Both ID and evolution are religions; They both rely on faith. One point that I would like to make is that ID makes much more sense when you consider all the evidence. More and more scientists, after much study, confess that there must be a Creator.

IF you want to.....tell me any evidenct that you have for evolution and I'll bet that I can show you how it's not good or reliable evidence, or that it has already been proven false. I can get you much information from scientists.

Peace,

in love,

Tom

[Observer of dreams]

These arguments are both based on inductive reasoning and no conclusion or agreement can be made until BOTH sides take a deductive view and objectively approach the other side.

The point of this topic is for questioner to state his beliefs about Intelligent Design. He did that in the beginning, and justified his beliefs. Flawed or not

they are his own beliefs.

His main argument was that intelligent design is not falsifiable and therefore missing a characteristic of a scientific theory. I pointed out that there are other theories of creation that take less assumptions than ID so Id is therefore not necessary. This makes the theory well rounded except a pie slice was missing, a way to test the theory, because common knowledge tells that no test=no theory.

I proposed that if one were to make the assumption that ID were correct than certain things, or all of the things in the universe would work mechanically, meaning that ice ages would occur around the same time, orbits of comets asteroids and planets would follow a predictable pattern and so on. Using these ideas one could make a prediction about a event presumed to be mechanical such as an ice age, and make a predition as to when the next one is to occur.

So we have the following:

1.Observation, "The universe is too advanced to come out of nothing.

2. Description, "Entire ID theory"

3. predictions or test, "make predictions about presumptuously mechanical events and view the statistics of past events (eg every winter in Nebraska it will snow at least once)

4.Falsifiable, "There are other theories that make less assumption (Occam's' razor argument takes hold.)

5. Identification of causes. God or creator causes Universe

6. Coveration of events, Effects of the mechanical and predictable events are a result of a God or creator

7. Time order relationship, God or creator existed first in order to create the universe. A universe that can be observably mechanical, and therfore fall in lines with a mind behind the madness if you will.

I understand this appears incomplete. I kind of shorthanded it to save time as I have somewhere I need to be. If the whole notion I have presented is totally absurd I will discontinue my efforts. However given the benefit of the doubt I will post a more thorough explanation of each of the scientific parts I have mentioned above

[apothanein kerdos]

I proposed that if one were to make the assumption that ID were correct than certain things, or all of the things in the universe would work mechanically, meaning that ice ages would occur around the same time, orbits of comets asteroids and planets would follow a predictable pattern and so on. Using these ideas one could make a prediction about a event presumed to be mechanical such as an ice age, and make a predition as to when the next one is to occur.

This is where the misunderstandings begin. IE does not mean that everything is mechanical and that there are no natural laws, evolution, etc. Notice how I have been calling it Intelligent Evolution instead of Intelligent Design (trust me, this will be the main term in a few years...so long as the rest agree to it). The reason is that we are so often accused of being against evolution. This simply is not true. Behe, Dembski, Wells, myself, and many others believe that the universe is billions of years old, was started by a big bang, and that planets evolved and life probably evolved on those planets as well. We accept there are natural laws that cause certain things to occur.

Where we disagree with the scientific community is that natural selection can cause the "Darwin Tree" to occur - that is, we argue that natural selection cannot cause diversity. We likewise argue that matter could not beget itself, that it could not create itself ex nihilo. Due to this, we look to the complexity of life at a basic level. Keep in mind one of the hidden secrets of materialistic evolution is that it falls if life is complex at it's most basic level. Darwin himself stated this, and it stands true today - the reason is that it is literally impossible for complexity to begin at a basic level. It is the equivalent to a car evolving from a tire, when it had no engine or anything else to begin with. Though it could be argued that the tire had purposes prior to being part of the car, there is no evidence for this and in fact, is nothing more than a guessing game and a hopeful wish.

Does that explain a bit more about IE outside of the rhetoric field?