[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[Jayls5]

I'll get straight to the point: My opinion is no.

One cannot hypothesize that something is too complex to have been created by some form of natural means and then test this hypothesis. If you think otherwise, do explain how this is possible. What criteria exists to determine what is "too complex" other than the apparent lack of understanding we have for something?

What quantitative (hell, even qualitative) substantiative empirical data would show that something was "intelligently designed" ???

Furthermore, what predictions could be made from this theory?

These apparent shortfalls that are required for the scientific method show that ID is far from science.

Now, if you would like to argue on any of the above points, I welcome it. I'll discuss them with you.

Point #2:
Assuming ID is NOT science, and ANY scientist turned in a paper hypothesizing it... why should that person remain a working scientist? If you are paid to be a scientist and you honestly suggest something that isn't scientific to your employer instead of real science, then why in the world should you keep your job? I simply can't see it as being unreasonable to fire/remove someone if they don't do their job. Like I said, if you think it is science, I welcome you guys to answer the questions above.

 

[John]

Is Evolution Science?

Science
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

So ID and evolution are not a science by definition,(not an exact science anyway.)

However one branch of the word science is to gain knowledge, so in this sense, evolution and ID are science.

 

[Snidey]

Yeah really, how can evolution be science :crazyeyes: ? Science is about discovering TRUTH. Scientists run around with their instruments and their degrees talking about how the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge (ignoring JESUS of course ;-) ) and how people on the Internet whose depth of scientific knowledge is limited to CreationWiki should not be acknowledged as a serious academic challenge to the work of thousands of studied academics. But then the science always changes! If it was a good way to discover truth, wouldn't it ALWAYS BE ENTIRELY RIGHT? :-D

The fact is that Christ is the only path to truth, and you can tell because he is ALWAYS RIGHT! There is a simple "scientific method" for testing Him - prayer! For example, the other day I was driving around looking for a parking spot. I asked Him to reveal one to me, and lo and behold, I found one within 15 minutes! The process of entering a situation with a preconceived notion and having it affirmed is called "confirmation by us" and is the primary method for proving the existence of Christ.

 

[John]

Your not from RD.net are you, lol

 

[Snidey]

Nope!

 

[John]

Nope!

Good, those people over there are strange indeed.

 

[Jayls5]

Is Evolution Science?

Science
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

So ID and evolution are not a science by definition,(not an exact science anyway.)

However one branch of the word science is to gain knowledge, so in this sense, evolution and ID are science.

Uhh, WHAT?

You're horribly twisting what the modern conception of science is. You completely ignored the scientific method and how it's required for scientific investigation. My post talks about essential aspects of that method. Simply put, does ID have it? If so, explain.

It's a fairly simple task, but I expect a lot of evasion in this thread. I don't want to see finger pointing about evolution here. If you don't think evolution has these aspects of science (which it does), make another thread about it. This discussion is about the merits of ID though, so lets stay on topic.

 

[John]

Some examples.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


1. What layed these layers of strata down?
2.Observe (hydrolotic sorting?)
3.Hmm maybe a huge flood did it.
4.experiment passes.
5.data confirmed
6.don't need to, the original works.
7.published (people got mad)
8.retest 2+2=4.

We can conclude the flood happened, yes there are still unknowns but the theory stands.
The bible states there was a great flood.
this prove that god/the bible were correct.

I am just playing around, i know no answer will be satisfactory enough for you.

 

[Jayls5]

Some examples.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


1. What layed these layers of strata down?
2.Observe (hydrolotic sorting?)
3.Hmm maybe a huge flood did it.
4.experiment passes.
5.data confirmed
6.don't need to, the original works.
7.published (people got mad)
8.retest 2+2=4.

We can conclude the flood happened, yes there are still unknowns but the theory stands.
The bible states there was a great flood.
this prove that god/the bible were correct.

I am just playing around, i know no answer will be satisfactory enough for you.

This has nothing to do with intelligent design. You just made a scientific test for a flood.

Can we stay on topic please?

 

[John]

Simply put god is on the outside, so how could we measure him?

 

[Jayls5]

Simply put god is on the outside, so how could we measure him?

So the punchline is.... ID isn't science.

If that's the case, then why shouldn't scientists be fired for trying to pass that off as science?

 

[John]

Simply put god is on the outside, so how could we measure him?

So the punchline is.... ID isn't science.

If that's the case, then why shouldn't scientists be fired for trying to pass that off as science?

The world around us is evidance of ID, thats the fight.

 

[jmm9683]

Simply put god is on the outside, so how could we measure him?

So the punchline is.... ID isn't science.

If that's the case, then why shouldn't scientists be fired for trying to pass that off as science?

The world around us is evidance of ID, thats the fight.

But it's not science.

 

[Jayls5]

Simply put god is on the outside, so how could we measure him?

So the punchline is.... ID isn't science.

If that's the case, then why shouldn't scientists be fired for trying to pass that off as science?

The world around us is evidance of ID, thats the fight.

You're entitled to your opinion, but do you see now why most scientists have so little patience for ID "hypotheses" ? Do you understand why there is little sympathy for people who are fired for trying to pass it off as science?

 

[John]

No i see no reason why ID should not be looked into. and the creationist researcher's "are" scientists and should be allowed to do what ever they want to study ID in their field, and have the same grants and tenner as the other scientists. ID is not dead or proven wrong, it has flaws yes, but again so does evolution.

 

[Jayls5]

No i see no reason why ID should not be looked into. and the creationist researcher's "are" scientists and should be allowed to do what ever they want to study ID in their field, and have the same grants and tenner as the other scientists. ID is not dead or proven wrong, it has flaws yes, but again so does evolution.

Once again, this discussion isn't about evolution. If you want to discuss its merits as a scientific study, you can feel free to make a thread.

Grant or not, ID not science. Why should a scientific organization pay for someone who doesn't do science? This is rhetorical; they shouldn't. The guy should be fired for not doing his job. You might think it should be looked into, but not paid for by scientific organizations! This is especially true when there is no criteria for even proving it correct.

 

[jmm9683]

No i see no reason why ID should not be looked into. and the creationist researcher's "are" scientists and should be allowed to do what ever they want to study ID in their field, and have the same grants and tenner as the other scientists. ID is not dead or proven wrong, it has flaws yes, but again so does evolution.

Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, admitted at the Dover trial that astrology would be considered a scientific theory using his criteria for explaining why Intelligent Design was scientific.

 

[Jayls5]

No i see no reason why ID should not be looked into. and the creationist researcher's "are" scientists and should be allowed to do what ever they want to study ID in their field, and have the same grants and tenner as the other scientists. ID is not dead or proven wrong, it has flaws yes, but again so does evolution.

Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, admitted at the Dover trial that astrology would be considered a scientific theory using his criteria for explaining why Intelligent Design was scientific.

Ouch johnmuise, would you like some ointment for that burn?

 

[John]

No i see no reason why ID should not be looked into. and the creationist researcher's "are" scientists and should be allowed to do what ever they want to study ID in their field, and have the same grants and tenner as the other scientists. ID is not dead or proven wrong, it has flaws yes, but again so does evolution.

Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, admitted at the Dover trial that astrology would be considered a scientific theory using his criteria for explaining why Intelligent Design was scientific.

Ouch johnmuise, would you like some ointment for that burn?

I just started reading that book, wait till i finish, then read the dover trials.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, the guys who invented ID, the Discovery Institute, admit to themselves that it's a religion. From their accidentally-leaked "Wedge Document:"

Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Religion, not science.