What Intelligent Design Is—and Isn’t

BeliefNet.com ^ | 5/13/05 | Jay W. Richards

[plain talk]

another one.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

ID Ping

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

“Still, some critics claim that science by definition can’t accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can’t settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore.”

~Michael Behe, in the New York Times Feb 7. Link

[MacDorcha]

ID ping-a-rooni

[Rodney King]

Unfortunately, few are willing to follow Townes’ advice. If we talk about ID, we’re warned, someone, somewhere, will start talking about God.

So it's just a coincidence then that those who promote ID tend to believe in God? Look, I beleive that God created the universe, but there is no point in pretending that those who promote ID are not in some way or another promoting God. That is just untruthful and everyone can see through it.

[orionblamblam]

What ID isn't:
1: Science
2: Backed up by *any* evidence
3: Worth wasting two minutes on defending

[orionblamblam]

4: Honest

[js1138]

"So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy..."

[inquest]

You're using circular logic. You start with the assumption that those promoting the theory are acting from non-scientific motivations, and then use that to "prove" that there's nothing scientific about it.

[Calvin Coolidge]

ID theory is carefully "designed" to fit into any cracks it can find in the Theory of Evolution. It is not a theory in itself, in the sense of being a testable, complete explanation of biodiversity that is subject to refutation via scientific evidence. It is just an opportunistic means of exploiting any debate in the scientific community over the details of Evolution.

Take this article's claim that noone in the early-20th century cared about the origins of the universe. Huh? Clearly, Hubble cared enough to create a hypothesis, seek out evidence to support or refute it, publish his findings, and then watch as his peers spent decades refining and testing it. But somehow the fact that this new hypothesis was created to fit the available evidence is presented as proof that science is close-minded.

Poppycock.

[plain talk]

Just your lame opinion. yawn

[threeleftsmakearight]

I'll never understand how the people who claim there is no God because of no scientific evidence also can not answer the question of the origin and scope of the universe.

[Rodney King]

You're using circular logic. You start with the assumption that those promoting the theory are acting from non-scientific motivations,

Yes. It is extraoridnarily clear that ID is being promoted 100% by Christians.

and then use that to "prove" that there's nothing scientific about it.

When did I do that? I simply think that ID proponents should'nt go to such great lengths to deny the obvious.

[Serenissima Venezia]

Can I get on this ping list?

[inquest]

Take this article's claim that noone in the early-20th century cared about the origins of the universe. Huh? Clearly, Hubble cared enough to create a hypothesis, seek out evidence to support or refute it, publish his findings, and then watch as his peers spent decades refining and testing it.

I don't see where the article made such a claim. And in any case, I don't think Hubble set out specifically to look for signs of the origin of the universe. I think he just noted the Doppler shift, and then drew the conclusion that suggested itself.

[G.Mason]

" ... The way to resolve the question isn’t to play definitional games but to look ...

Kind of says it all. Truth will out.

Just when we were having fun with the "Global Warming" crowd, they're trying to get serious?

[Rodney King]

I'll never understand how the people who claim there is no God because of no scientific evidence also can not answer the question of the origin and scope of the universe.

Me too. Their position is really the faith based one.

[inquest]

It is extraoridnarily clear that ID is being promoted 100% by Christians.

Assuming that's even true, since when has that ever discredited a theory?

I simply think that ID proponents should'nt go to such great lengths to deny the obvious.

More circular logic.

[TeenagedConservative]

Yes. It is extraoridnarily clear that ID is being promoted 100% by Christians.

100% of the ID promoters I have met are non-Christians. Philip Johnson, to give the name.