I think half you people have never even read a book on intelligent design.. how could you possibly even make a claim that it's not a science then? Realize something, intelligent design is a whole lot closer to evolution then you think.
28 comments
Actually, some ID books are quite explicit that evolution does actually happen, and explains the origin of much of what life we see around us.
Most then goes on to claim that the bits we haven't explained have no explanation and therefore are evidence of an intelligent designer at work.
This is called an argument from ignorance or, often, the "God of the gaps" fallacy.
It is telling that the rare occurrences of them actually providing evidence for ID (i.e. instances of irreducible complexity), they have not stood up to scientific scrutiny. And even then, their argument consists of little more than "We say this is designed, so it is unless you prove us wrong!"
Well, there ARE schools of intelligent design that are pretty close to evolution. There are many ID:ers who say that things can evolve and that almost everything that the theory of evolution says is true. They have realized that they have to say that, since the evidence for it is overwhelming. But then they say that their belief is that evolution started by, and is somewhat guided by, the almighty God, and they think that this is a scientific theory, and that this should be taught in schools. They think that regular evolutionary theory somehow states that a God isn’t possible.
Well it doesn’t. The ToE says nothing about God. It talks only about those things that we have actually observed, and the conclusions we can draw from that. There might be a God involved somehow, but saying “Maybe God did it” is not a scientific theory, since we so far have no indications of neither the presence of a God, nor the need for a God. And assuming things that we have not observed, neither directly or indirectly, is not science.
You are fully allowed to believe in God though. Just don't belive that your belief has something to do with science.
"How could you possibly even make a claim that it's not a science then?"
Because with science, you don't start out with a conclusion and then come up with a theory to explain it.
You are supposed to observe something, and then come up with a theory.
We observe evolution of living things in the natural world. We don't observe living creatures getting designed in the real world. Intelligently or otherwise.
I think all of you people have never even read a book on science.
No, Kent Hovind books are not science.
Realize something, intelligent design is a whole lot closer to evolution then you think.
In some versions it's little different than "theistic evolution", the idea that evolution happens, but God sticks His fingers into the process and guides it. This can't be disproved, since any apparently random even could, in theory, have actually been God's work. Did someone win the lottery by chance, or because he prayed and God helped him out? Who can tell?
A well-written explanation of why ID isn't science can be found in Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board .
I'm sure its much more than half haven't read them. Those of us who have, know for sure it's not worth reading, isn't science, and we tell everyone.
To be fair, its true that some ID proponents do believe that only the first cell was created by God and/or a creator. Of course that isn't disagreeing with evolution at all, its disagreeing with abiogenesis. Other ID proponents believe that God or some technologically advanced entity created increasingly complex life forms over time, which can be argued as being similar to evolution.
I think half you people have never even read a book on intelligent design.. how could you possibly even make a claim that it's not a science then?
Because Intelligent Design has no theory, makes no predictions, produces no evidence, It's not falsifiable, and all that has been done by the IDiot's to date has been to attack evolutionary theory, attack the proponents of evolutionary theory, and make blind assertions on the validity of the methods used by Palentologists, Evolutionary Biologists, and Astrophyisists.
In short... It's all the things that science is not.
Missed the Dover trial didn't you?
You must of meant to say you only half think.
Not called IDiots without cause.
I've never read a book on astrology either, but I know that is not a science either.
And if ID is a science, why couldn't its proponents defend that claim in Kitzmiller vs. Dover?
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.
