| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SJAB1958" |
| Date: |
31 Oct 2006 04:57:04 AM |
| Object: |
Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
Having examined one of Casey Luskin's articles on the Internet (see
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm), I have discovered a major
flaw in the alleged scientific theory of intelligent design, it doesnt
attempt to identify the designer.
Now according to the scientific method, any theory must identify the
cause of the phenomenon that it is attempting to explain.
So the bad news is for all you ID guys out there, your theory isnt a
scientific one.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
31 Oct 2006 11:52:33 AM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
Having examined one of Casey Luskin's articles on the Internet (see
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm), I have discovered a major
flaw in the alleged scientific theory of intelligent design, it doesnt
attempt to identify the designer.
Now according to the scientific method, any theory must identify the
cause of the phenomenon that it is attempting to explain.
The phenomenon would be design. The cause would be intelligence.
Now, you can operate from the position that there is no evidence of
intelligence in the universe (not even our own), as Carl Sagan did.
However, that's not exactly practical. If we accept the existence of
intelligence and that it's not obligated to be limited to us, alone,
then, intelligence can exist in many ways and in many forms, which
might be interesting to examine. If we cannot accept the existence of
intelligence beyond the fragile and meaningless bounds of the human
experience, then we risk being misdirected by our own vanity.
JTG 10/31/06
So the bad news is for all you ID guys out there, your theory isnt a
scientific one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry K" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
01 Nov 2006 10:05:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
Having examined one of Casey Luskin's articles on the Internet (see
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm), I have discovered a major
flaw in the alleged scientific theory of intelligent design, it doesnt
attempt to identify the designer.
Now according to the scientific method, any theory must identify the
cause of the phenomenon that it is attempting to explain.
The phenomenon would be design. The cause would be intelligence.
Now, you can operate from the position that there is no evidence of
intelligence in the universe (not even our own), as Carl Sagan did.
However, that's not exactly practical. If we accept the existence of
intelligence and that it's not obligated to be limited to us, alone,
then, intelligence can exist in many ways and in many forms, which
might be interesting to examine. If we cannot accept the existence of
intelligence beyond the fragile and meaningless bounds of the human
experience, then we risk being misdirected by our own vanity.
JTG 10/31/06
I must be missing something. I don't think anyone denies that there is
intelligence and different varieties thereof. But just what does that
have to do with ID? Intelligence exists quite nicely without
'designing life'
Harry K
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
01 Nov 2006 07:04:25 PM |
|
|
Harry K wrote:
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
Having examined one of Casey Luskin's articles on the Internet (see
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm), I have discovered a major
flaw in the alleged scientific theory of intelligent design, it doesnt
attempt to identify the designer.
Now according to the scientific method, any theory must identify the
cause of the phenomenon that it is attempting to explain.
The phenomenon would be design. The cause would be intelligence.
Now, you can operate from the position that there is no evidence of
intelligence in the universe (not even our own), as Carl Sagan did.
However, that's not exactly practical. If we accept the existence of
intelligence and that it's not obligated to be limited to us, alone,
then, intelligence can exist in many ways and in many forms, which
might be interesting to examine. If we cannot accept the existence of
intelligence beyond the fragile and meaningless bounds of the human
experience, then we risk being misdirected by our own vanity.
JTG 10/31/06
I must be missing something. I don't think anyone denies that there is
intelligence and different varieties thereof. But just what does that
have to do with ID? Intelligence exists quite nicely without
'designing life'
Yes, there is only ONE intelligence capable of designing
life. Yet, this simple fact is lost on the religion of
science which believes and preaches that science will
eventually uncover the secret to creation, life and death,
and all other religious speculations. In other words: it is
science that will put us at the right hand of God... nay,
science will make us God. Halleluja!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
01 Nov 2006 07:34:01 PM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7vudnUOKke7c2dTYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
Harry K wrote:
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
Having examined one of Casey Luskin's articles on the Internet (see
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm), I have discovered a major
flaw in the alleged scientific theory of intelligent design, it doesnt
attempt to identify the designer.
Now according to the scientific method, any theory must identify the
cause of the phenomenon that it is attempting to explain.
The phenomenon would be design. The cause would be intelligence.
Now, you can operate from the position that there is no evidence of
intelligence in the universe (not even our own), as Carl Sagan did.
However, that's not exactly practical. If we accept the existence of
intelligence and that it's not obligated to be limited to us, alone,
then, intelligence can exist in many ways and in many forms, which
might be interesting to examine. If we cannot accept the existence of
intelligence beyond the fragile and meaningless bounds of the human
experience, then we risk being misdirected by our own vanity.
JTG 10/31/06
I must be missing something. I don't think anyone denies that there is
intelligence and different varieties thereof. But just what does that
have to do with ID? Intelligence exists quite nicely without
'designing life'
Yes, there is only ONE intelligence capable of designing life. Yet, this
simple fact is lost on the religion of science which believes and preaches
that science will eventually uncover the secret to creation, life and
death, and all other religious speculations. In other words: it is
science that will put us at the right hand of God... nay, science will
make us God. Halleluja!
Where does science say or even imply that? IOW, you speak *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
01 Nov 2006 07:52:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:34:01 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Where does science say or even imply that? IOW, you speak *****.
Intelligent Design was the heuristic framework that unified scientific
theory and research from Copernicus to the Enlightenment. The heuristic
framework that undergirds scientific research today, explicitly forbids
intelligent design on the grounds it is not falsifiable, a practice which is
at odds with Popper's original model, which allows for metaphysical theories
within scientific research, and which is untrue in any case inasmuch as ID
is clearly falsifiable. The BS is emanating from your corner ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
02 Nov 2006 10:39:33 AM |
|
|
"George Peatty" <peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in message
news:ofjik2tjok0c31neq5fm5elck5hojhsj0t@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:34:01 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Where does science say or even imply that? IOW, you speak *****.
Intelligent Design was the heuristic framework that unified scientific
theory and research from Copernicus to the Enlightenment. The heuristic
framework that undergirds scientific research today, explicitly forbids
intelligent design on the grounds it is not falsifiable, a practice which
is
at odds with Popper's original model, which allows for metaphysical
theories
within scientific research, and which is untrue in any case inasmuch as ID
is clearly falsifiable. The BS is emanating from your corner ..
Gee George, you have the same problem that Roy has, you can't read. Now,
let's replace the part which you dishonestly clipped and see my comment in
context. The part to which I replied and you clipped:
Yes, there is only ONE intelligence capable of designing life. Yet, this
simple fact is lost on the religion of science which believes and preaches
that science will eventually uncover the secret to creation, life and
death, and all other religious speculations. In other words: it is
science that will put us at the right hand of God... nay, science will
make us God. Halleluja!
Now George, let's see. Mmm....only one intelligence capable of creating
life. That looks like ***** to me. Perhaps you aren't an old farm boy and
can't recognize ***** when it is in your face. I also don't know of
anywhere where the 'religion' of science "believes and preaches
that science will eventually uncover the secret to creation, life and
death, and all other religious speculations." Another piece of *****.
Science will put us at the right hand of god? Pure BS again. Popper never
dealt with the likes of you and Roy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
02 Nov 2006 02:02:05 PM |
|
|
Ralph wrote:
"George Peatty" <peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in message
news:ofjik2tjok0c31neq5fm5elck5hojhsj0t@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:34:01 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Where does science say or even imply that? IOW, you speak *****.
Intelligent Design was the heuristic framework that unified scientific
theory and research from Copernicus to the Enlightenment. The heuristic
framework that undergirds scientific research today, explicitly forbids
intelligent design on the grounds it is not falsifiable, a practice which
is
at odds with Popper's original model, which allows for metaphysical
theories
within scientific research, and which is untrue in any case inasmuch as ID
is clearly falsifiable. The BS is emanating from your corner ..
Gee George, you have the same problem that Roy has, you can't read. Now,
let's replace the part which you dishonestly clipped and see my comment in
context. The part to which I replied and you clipped:
Yes, there is only ONE intelligence capable of designing life. Yet, this
simple fact is lost on the religion of science which believes and preaches
that science will eventually uncover the secret to creation, life and
death, and all other religious speculations. In other words: it is
science that will put us at the right hand of God... nay, science will
make us God. Halleluja!
Now George, let's see. Mmm....only one intelligence capable of creating
life. That looks like ***** to me. Perhaps you aren't an old farm boy and
can't recognize ***** when it is in your face. I also don't know of
anywhere where the 'religion' of science "believes and preaches
that science will eventually uncover the secret to creation, life and
death, and all other religious speculations." Another piece of *****.
Science will put us at the right hand of god? Pure BS again. Popper never
dealt with the likes of you and Roy.
Popper never dealt with the reality of the moral behind the
story of the Tower of Babel.
Incidentally: try to get the attributions straight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
13 Nov 2006 05:28:31 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:34:01 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
Where does science say or even imply that? IOW, you speak *****.
Intelligent Design was the heuristic framework that unified scientific
theory and research from Copernicus to the Enlightenment. The heuristic
framework that undergirds scientific research today, explicitly forbids
intelligent design on the grounds it is not falsifiable, a practice which is
at odds with Popper's original model, which allows for metaphysical theories
within scientific research, and which is untrue in any case inasmuch as ID
is clearly falsifiable. The BS is emanating from your corner ..
Let's see....
ID "theory" is that an "intelligent designer" (*not* the Christian God,
of course, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, nuge, know what I mean), using
means which are implicitly supernatural (why else demand that the
definition of science be changed to include the supernatural?)
interferes with normal evolutionary processes.
To falsify that "theory" you need to propose a phenomenon which can
*NOT* be attributed to an "intelligent designer" using supernatural
powers.
Falsifying evolution in small incremental steps would falsify the
theory that evolution occurs in small incremental steps. That does not
provide support for any other theory.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad News For Intelligent Design Supporters |
01 Nov 2006 08:31:12 PM |
|
|
Ralph wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7vudnUOKke7c2dTYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
Harry K wrote:
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
Having examined one of Casey Luskin's articles on the Internet (see
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm), I have discovered a major
flaw in the alleged scientific theory of intelligent design, it doesnt
attempt to identify the designer.
Now according to the scientific method, any theory must identify the
cause of the phenomenon that it is attempting to explain.
The phenomenon would be design. The cause would be intelligence.
Now, you can operate from the position that there is no evidence of
intelligence in the universe (not even our own), as Carl Sagan did.
However, that's not exactly practical. If we accept the existence of
intelligence and that it's not obligated to be limited to us, alone,
then, intelligence can exist in many ways and in many forms, which
might be interesting to examine. If we cannot accept the existence of
intelligence beyond the fragile and meaningless bounds of the human
experience, then we risk being misdirected by our own vanity.
JTG 10/31/06
I must be missing something. I don't think anyone denies that there is
intelligence and different varieties thereof. But just what does that
have to do with ID? Intelligence exists quite nicely without
'designing life'
Yes, there is only ONE intelligence capable of designing life. Yet, this
simple fact is lost on the religion of science which believes and preaches
that science will eventually uncover the secret to creation, life and
death, and all other religious speculations. In other words: it is
science that will put us at the right hand of God... nay, science will
make us God. Halleluja!
Where does science say or even imply that? IOW, you speak *****.
You know not what you believe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
