Intelligent design isn't a Science.
Oh really. So it is not important to find out what spirits are? It is not important to understand what life really is? It is not important to find out who created DNA? Things that can't be explained should not be researched?
50 comments
> So it is not important to find out what spirits are?
That's a question of Theology, not Biology.
> It is not important to understand what life really is?
That's a question of Philosophy, not Biology.
> It is not important to find out who created DNA?
That's a question of History, not Biology.
> Things that can't be explained should not be researched?
That's a proposition by Fundamentalists, not Scientists.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover#Holding_of_the_Court
Holding of the Court
Using the Lemon v. Kurtzman test, the court found that intelligent design was primarily religious and fostered unnecessary entanglement of church and state.
The court further found that intelligent design is not science.
The 'Lemon' test examines three points. Does the action have a purely secular purpose, does the action promote or inhibit religion, does the action result in an entanglement of the state and religion. A failure of any of the three conditions means it is unconstitutional under the establishment clause.
Why must DNA have been created by a person? Like all molecules, it came to be via natural processes involving chemistry and the physics of the atom.
Furthermore, ID does nothing to come close to answering the very questions you pose.
Intelligent design has never been science, because science does not equal claiming 'goddidit' and looking no further. It means doing actual research and producing actual reviewable data.
Christians are extraordinarily dishonest about this, however, and to see it all one has to do is ask them about the identity of the 'designer'. If the 'designer' were anything other than the christian god they couldn't very well accept that. They'd lose their minds at the suggestion the 'designer' might be Allah, Zeus, Cernunnos or any other god than YHWH. ID is creationism (poorly) masquerading as science and they know it.
Christianity attempts to answer theological/philosophical questions (both of which it fails at miserably), but never until the last few years has it ever claimed to be science. How ridiculous to even claim it is.
Intelligent Design is not science because it starts with the conclusion (biblical creationism is real) and finds evidence to support it and ignores the mountains of evidence which refute it. It's also not science because ID only consists of lame, long-refuted attacks on evolutionary theory and nothing at all which supports or proves the idea of an intelligent designer. Not one creation "scientist" has ever published a peer-reviewed paper on ID showing that evidence of a designer exists.
Science is a method. Whether or not something is important to examine doesn't change that. ID isn't science because it doesn't allow the evidence to lead to the conclusion, rather, it starts with the conclusion. That you frame the questions as "What spirits are?" and "Who created DNA" shows this bias. Plus, ID requires one to ignore the bulk of the credible evidence.
"So it is not important to find out what spirits are?"
It's very important. One wouldn't want to make a Martini with Tequila, or a Highball with Gin....
Bullshit: can't be explained or researched!
Things that can't be explained should not be researched?
That's exactly what creationists want: they say "we can't explain this today, so let's just stop looking and assume it was done by magic".
So it is not important to find out what spirits are?
I worked as a bartender for years before opening my restaurant. I know what spirits are.
It is not important to understand what life really is?
There are plenty of scientists tackling that very question. Scientific scuffles have broken out over whether a virus is a living thing or not.
It is not important to find out who created DNA?
If comets can be called a "who". We've found some of the base chemicals that make up DNA on them. I believe Adenine and Guanine (two of the four DNA bases) were found on comets.
Things that can't be explained should not be researched?
We research many things that are unexplained. The origin of life, the reason why there's water on Mars, what physical properties make bikes work, etc. In the past it was the origin of disease and lightning. What we're NOT putting money and time into researching is made up explanations from some random book of mythology.
Spirits are things like Gin, Vodka, Rum & Brandy.
Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease.
There is no evidence that there was ever a 'Who'.
what the origin of species is not about:
what intelligent design is supposed to be about:
keep your own bullshit straight!
"Oh really. So it is not important to find out what spirits are?"
Immaterial. In that sense, they have something in common with Intelligent Design.
Oh really. So it is not important to find out what spirits are?
It is not important to understand what life really is?
It is not important to find out who created DNA?
Things that can't be explained should not be researched?
Didn't think so.
We found out what 'spirits' are ages ago.
There's another point that bears mentioning about the definition of science. If we stick strictly to the way Karl Popper defined science, then:
1. SETI and all attempts at discovery within the unknown, are not science because they're not falsifiable.
If there's room for debate over whether these endeavors -- all of which are undoubtedly worthwhile -- then ID certainly doesn't deserve to be thought of as science.
> So it is not important to find out what spirits are?
Of course it's important. They're the immaterial seat of intelligence. The evidence points to the seat of intelligence being material, therefore the evidence points to spirits not existing.
> It is not important to understand what life really is?
Of course it's important. There was a huge discussion about whether viruses counted as life.
> It is not important to find out who created DNA?
Why does it have to be a "who?"
> Things that can't be explained should not be researched?
Everything in science (or, arguably, everything period) eventually boils down to "this is what we observe; there is no explanation." Gravity, for example, used to have no explanation.
@WWWWolf:
"> So it is not important to find out what spirits are? > It is not important to understand what life really is? > It is not important to find out who created DNA? > Things that can't be explained should not be researched?
And only two of those fields are actually sciences [philosophy and history] (although I'd like to point out that "who created DNA?" would fall on philosophy as well. That or chemistry).
As to PG's post... EvenFundiesHaveStandards?
1) If you prove that they exist, it'll become important. Right now it's essentially a meaningless word. Not to mention it has nothing to do with creationism. (Oh, sorry, we were using the politically correct term, weren't we?)
2) Of course it's important! Biology explains the science behind life. If by "life" you meant something like "personal experiences," that is also important, but not a job for scientists so much as psychologists and maybe artists. And again: not relevant to ID in any way.
3) Nobody created DNA; it arose naturally. At least that's what the evidence suggests. If we discover evidence to the contrary, that will change.
4) The point of research is to try to explain things that we couldn't explain before. In other words, if anyone actually believed that, they would be disbelieving in ALL OF SCIENCE.
No, it's perfectly fine to look into those things. But you're not using the scientific method so it's not science.
Look, you want to talk about who created everything or you want to find out what spirits are? Great, I'd be happy to discuss that with you and we might even find some agreement (I acknowledge god, I just don't worship him). But that's for religion or philosophy, it's not a science because it doesn't use the scientific method.
Gaylen, the answers you seek lie down an eternally dark, bottomless pit, such is the level of profundity you pretend for them. Or are they really facetious sound bites masquerading as the spirit of enquiry? Whatever, seek for your answers in an eternally dark, bottomless pit.
> So it is not important to find out what spirits are?
> It is not important to understand what life really is?
> It is not important to find out who created DNA?
> Things that can't be explained should not be researched?
Spirits: a quick but slightly expensive means of getting drunk. I, personally, prefer vodka, but I'm not partial to a nice gin and tonic every once and a while.
Intelligent design is not a science as it doesn't use the scientific method. It cannot be tested, measured or quantified. It is not empirical. You cannot observe it, either naturally or under laboratory conditions. There are still people who insist psychology isn't a science because it isn't consistently all of the things I've just listed (we've had to settle for 'social science') so I'll be damned if you fundies ever get to call your childish fantasies and imaginary friend a 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.
