Intelligent design does not argue against the facts that organisms do evolve.
Proponents of intelligent design are simply saying that the universe and the laws that govern it and act in it (including genetics and evolutionary capability) was intelligently designed by some sort of higher power. It does seem like a "good move" to design a creation that has the ability to adapt to the environment as it changes, does it not?
Your data must be 100% backed up by scientific facts and (as the scientific method states) must be demonstratable and able to be repeated over and over again.
Neither of us can prove "empirically" how the universe and life came into existence.
Additionally, a serious question I have always wondering is how did we come to the VAST variety of plants that we see now? Everyone discusses the evolution of the animal side of the picture, but I rarely hear discussion explaning the massive variety of vegetation and where it all came from.
27 comments
Are you quite sure about that? I thought the ID movement, stupid though it is, was at least intelligent enough to restrict itself only to the origin of species, not the origin of the entire universe.
"Your data must be 100% backed up by scientific facts and (as the scientific method states) must be demonstratable and able to be repeated over and over again."
why do they ALWAYS insist on this? have they EVER held themselves to this standard?
"Additionally, a serious question I have always wondering is how did we come to the VAST variety of plants that we see now? Everyone discusses the evolution of the animal side of the picture, but I rarely hear discussion explaning the massive variety of vegetation and where it all came from."
If you rarely hear it, it's because you rarely listen. Plants, like animals, reproduce with variation, and therefore are able to evolve. Like animals, they are subject to natural selection, in that those plants best suited to their environment will be most likely to survive and pass on their genes to the highest number of viable offspring.
Plants are alive, and evolution is an intrinsic property of life.
"Or please provide the empirical data that shows how life came from lifelessness.. "
Please give empirical data that ID was not invented by religious fanatics to discredit science.
"Additionally, a serious question I have always wondering is how did we come to the VAST variety of plants that we see now? Everyone discusses the evolution of the animal side of the picture, but I rarely hear discussion explaning the massive variety of vegetation and where it all came from."
They evolved you stupid fuck.
Give me the 100% scientific fruit juice about where this Creator guy came from.
Remember, science doesn't allow for infinitely powerful beings.
Under that criteria, you will have to prove that:
1. A creator created the universe(100% backed by scientific facts)
2. While (creator was created)
3. Prove the creator at the top(the one without a creator above it) was indeed able to materialize from nothing.
Spectacularly non-fundie, really.
Of all the rightwing religious nonsense on the web, this doesn't even qualify. It's really quite rational.
"Additionally, a serious question I have always wondering is how did we come to the VAST variety of plants that we see now? Everyone discusses the evolution of the animal side of the picture, but I rarely hear discussion explaning the massive variety of vegetation and where it all came from."
He isn't really a fundie, at least he isn't saying that God selects traits for organisms.
I agree that a God of the magnitude described in most monotheistic and gods in polytheistic religions could've developed a universe.
Personally, I'm deist, I'd be atheist if I didn't believe in God, but I can't seem to be able to not believe in God, so yeah.
Intelligent design does not argue against the facts that organisms do evolve.
it does, however, argue with basic scientific principles, basic logic, and the burden of proof.
Ah, the rules of proof for creationists.
For our side:
For their side:
"It does seem like a "good move" to design a creation that has the ability to adapt to the environment as it changes, does it not?"
Yes it does, just like it seems like a good survival advantage to be adaptible to change.
That's not ID though. Dembski called intelligent design the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance", that is design is what is not the product of chance or natural laws. So the Moon's round shape isn't design, since it is a natural consequence of the action of gravity, and the Old Man of the Mountain isn't design, since it is the product of random forces.
To say that the universe and the laws that govern it were designed is to assert that they are neither random nor inevitable. That is the claim that requires empirical proof!
The poster seems to describe faith. The issue with ID is that it's something else: a political movement that attempts to corrupt science education and evade the separation of Church and state, using a tradition of pseudoscience that's been borrowed from earlier attempts, like "Creation Science".
Unlike personal faith in a creator, this tries to disguise itself as academic, even removing references to the Christian God of its tradition from its textbooks. The aim of the movement is to deny established science, to insert uncertainty propaganda as part of biology, for instance. The tradition embeds pseudoscientific apologetics like Specified Complexity and Irredudible Complexity that too, are easily detectable as flawed. To promote the equivalent of the watchmaker analogy.
Then of course, there's the separation of Church and state. This means that a course on moral and religion that includes an overview of Christianity among other religions is fine, but also means that religious apologetics have no place in science textbooks and science courses like geography, physics, geology and biology. Tainting those would be violating your constitution as well as the integrity of education and science.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
