[Nicholas Conradin]

I hesitated in posting this because there are some significant statements about philosophy with which I disagreed. Let the reader beware.

"we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says" AFAIK there are no statements in the US Constitution speaking to scientific theory. Maybe the author means some other constitution.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Have you read Popper? Have you read on his 'falsifiability'? How would you falsify creation theory, ID theory or evolution? This is just what the age-old argument is on; those that understand enough philosophy of science to make the decision aren't closely involved, those that are closely involved are not familiar with falsifiability, e. g.

[gobucks]

PH's posse will be thrilled w/ this article.

But be sure of one thing: 'falsifyability' must be philosophically accepted a priori as being 'true' for 'science'.

Popper's argument, though it can be argued is logical, is nonetheless a starting point that must be accepted by faith. You have to trust that 'science' MUST be defined this way, in order for it to 'be' science.

The problem is this: ID searches for causes. Evolution, good for explaining certain things that appear to be 'caused' does not sufficiently grapple with other things that are 'caused.

ID provides an alternate cause ... and an argument presenting that it is not falsifyable is not really an argument.

For Marx attracted followers and his 'theories' were tested ... and proven false. Freud has been utterly deligitimized ... because much of what he wrote proved to be, in practice, false.

But both of them got an audience.

Funny ... ID is the only non religious body of thought I have ever seen which is been so vociferously attacked and being denied an audience.

How can it be any more robust that Marxism and Freudism ... what is being risked by letting it be falsified, like they were?

[MindBender26]

Intelligent Design is neither Intelligent or a Design. It is simply another attempt by Creationists to put forth their "God Created The World Like It Says In The Bible" the beliefs.

I would have more respect for them if they would admit that, rather than trying to be Luddites with modern marketing and PR advice.

It's Scopes 3.2 (and before anyone starts worrying about saving my soul, I'm an ordained elder in my church, and quite satisfied I'll see you all in Heaven, thank you.)

[Stark_GOP]

Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?
---
Wow, just from reading the headline I could tell that this article is a slanted, biased, puff piece of propaganda.

It reminds me of the loaded question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[I-ambush]

The real debate is not over science, which is concerned with the observable, but over whose underlying metaphysical view one accepts: materialism vs. some form of theism. The problem is that those on the Darwinism side of the debate refuse to see or studiously ignore the fact that the natural sciences do not contain all possible knowledge.

[Aquinasfan]

Both evolutionary theory and intelligent design are "non-scientific," in the sense that they both postulate unobservable distant causes for natural phenomena. To eliminate a priori supernatural causes for natural phenomena is dogmatism in the worst sense, since many observable, testable and miraculous phenomena are observable today.

Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Blood of St. Januarius
The Tilma of Guadalupe
Incorrupt bodies of the saints
Fatima
Shroud of Turin
Sudarium of Oviedo

[Dustbunny]

Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Theory - not theory, call it what you want, it deserves the same amount of teaching in the classroom as the Darwin Theory.

[Senator Bedfellow]

As long as theory is science and not religion, there is no legal barrier to teaching it.

Is this what the argument is reduced to now? "It may be completely incorrect and/or intensely stupid, but hey - it's legal!" LOL.

[Just mythoughts]

Got to love the reliance upon Marx that "great god" of humanity.

"IF" as we are told that the Creator created alllll things then he created "science", although He will allow His creation to deny Him while in the flesh.

[Tom Bombadil]

there was no way to prove to proponents of the theory that they were wrong.

Irreducible complexity could be falsified by demonstrating reducible complexity for the biochemical reactions cited in ID.

That is the sticking point. One side says "we don't know how they got that way...but we will someday", and the other side says "it could have been an act of creation".

It is nothing to get bothered about, both sides react to the facts but it isn't so much intelligent design that is the problem as it is the idea of irreducible complexity on a molecular level.

[Just mythoughts]

FYI

[JCEccles]

Fascinating headline. Looks fun! Let me try:

Query: Do Darwinists become closed-minded zealots and fools by education and training, or are these inborn traits?

[BlazingArizona]

Considered scientifically, intelligent design is a hypothesis, not a theory. A hypothesis is a scientific conjecture that has not yet been tested by experiment. We don't generally go around teaching hypotheses in grade school, but we also don't reject them until we devise experimentsthat disprove them.

Scientifically, we can express the ID conjecture as: "There exists at least one biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection". ID advocates have cited some examples they think are candidates, such as the bacterial flagellum. Are any scientists out there willing to scientifically test the hypothesis, or are they going to take natural selection on faith, as with "human-induced climate change"?

[The Shootist]

Creative Design is, by definition, not a theory. To be a theory a hypothesis must be testable. Creative Design is not. When a theory becomes untestable it become philosophy.

[Just mythoughts]

FYI

[Sloth]

But should Intelligent Design -- the theory that living organisms were created at least in part by an intelligent designer, not by a blind process of evolution by natural selection...

This article seems fairly sound to me. But the same standard should apply to the other side. Proponents of evolution being a "blind process" -- i.e., purely the product of natural forces -- also propose no test by which that belief may be falsified, and therefore it is not scientific. Neither view belongs in a science classroom. Both are philosophies.

[SuziQ]

Here's another one about ID.

[aruanan]

Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Neither. But the title is an example of being polemical.

[SalukiLawyer]

Neither evolution nor ID is science in the first place. They are both attempts to explain past events on the basis of limited evidence. To that end they may use science and consult experts. Nothing is actually proved in the way it might be in physics or chemistry. Both are argued, and both have appealing arguments on their behalf. The problem with evolution as it is taught is that it includes (indeeds depends upon) a type of questionable argument called an enthymeme ("the glove don't fit, you must acquit") sprinkled with "magic science dust" to help it sneak by.

It is an absolute historical fact that evolution has been used from the beginning as an engine of destruction of religious faith by some people (not necessarily scientists). It is also a fact that ID is being used as a means of getting Christianity back into public schools. People sometimes get strident on both sides.

If you want to think clearly about evolution, imagine less Einstein and more CSI. This is a forensic question and the issue is currently unresolvable in terms of scientific proof. Materialists and believers will therefore make such arguments as they may on the basis of the evidence. Many modern educated people are, frankly, scared of God. They can take comfort in bad rhetoric posing as "science." As far as what goes on in school, we all know that evolution is taught as a scientific fact, which it is not.

Of course, neither is ID. :-)

[Doc Savage]

"Is Evolution a flawed scientific theory that will never become an established LAW, or is neo-darwinism nothing more than wishful dogmatic socialistic ideology masquerading as science???????"