Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win

Tech Central Station ^ | 7 Oct 2005 | Douglas Kern

[Petronius]

This is just an outrage! There is another viable explanation (it happens to be the Truth) but it's being silenced by evolutionists and creationists.

To both sides: you can run, but the Truth will find you.

[Avenger]

How can we possibly scientifically investigate the question of intelligent design when we don't even have a scientific definition of intelligence?

[Wormwood]

There was this guy a long time ago that took some really terrible punishment on my behalf. He did it despite knowing that I would hate him for years. I'll stick with Him, thanks.

More power to you!

There is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Stop assuming there is.

[Avenger]

"Perhaps you will object if I refer you to Occam's Razor?"

Simplicity is not the same as simple-minded.

[Louis Foxwell]

Dumbest analysis I've seen yet.

Thereby proving the writer's thesis.

[seastay]

What is the big deal is all about for those that oppose ID?

There are lot of things taught in school that are vague or two sided; nobody seems to get into a tizzy if we call our holiday Presidents day instead of Lincoln or Washington’s Birthday. Where is the outrage and endless debate regarding how the first Americans came to America or about Columbus being a villain or a hero? Nobody can explain to students how the pyramids were built. There are competing theories in textbooks and classroom discussion about many subjects. One would think that a science subject would be the least immune from intolerance of competing ideas?

Isn't that what school is about; to get kids to think for themselves, so how could this be accomplished if there is no debate on competing ideas?

[gobucks]

lol!!

[webstersII]

"Simplicity is not the same as simple-minded."

Let the condescension begin!

[gobucks]

Isn't that what school is about; to get kids to think for themselves, so how could this be accomplished if there is no debate on competing ideas?

You raise a really interesting question ... just what is the purpose of a 'government school'? I honestly believe it is NOT to get kids to think for themselves or think at all.

In fact, public schools seem to be especially perfect places to minimize the ability of kids to grow their creative tendencies.

I remember all too well the consequences associated w/ asking questions.

[carumba]

God hasn't satisfied every curious questioner. As far as I know and understand the answers are not available yet.

[MindBender26]

It's amazing how someone can be so wrong on legal, ethical, theological and practical issues, all in one article!

Wonder of he knows about "The Legal Duck?"

[Louis Foxwell]

Please explain what the Big Bang theory has to do with the TOE?

It is connected to the FOOT. (Friends Of Ontological Theories.)

[MindBender26]

Wonder IF he knows....

[Louis Foxwell]

Where did the intelligent designer come from (besides the imagination of Creationists)?

Himself.

"I Am That I Am."

[Nephi]

Thanks for posting the article - it is excellent!

[Just mythoughts]

"How can we possibly scientifically investigate the question of intelligent design when we don't even have a scientific definition of intelligence?"

"Simplicity is not the same as simple-minded."


Are you arguing with yourself or what????

[KeepUSfree]

Unfortunately (for you), if you strictly use Occam's razor, it is also more simple to believe that Apollo drives his sun charriot across the sky every day. And, that's fine if you want to believe it. But, Occams razor refers to "Scientific" solutions" And ID, by definition, ain't science - in the same manner that "same-sex marriage" - ain't marriage - by definition. So, if you want to persist in perverting the definition of "Science" to inclue ID, you must not complain when others want to pervert the defintion of "marriage" to include 2 males, 2 girls and a guy or a girl and her horse.

So, in conclusion, be careful what you wish for. You think you are wishing for acceptence and acknowledgement of God - a creator. But, what you are really asking everyone to do is to twist words, definitions, and reality in order to get your way - same as the liberals and commies.
But, it's ok that you want to twist science, the world and reality for your own personal (whether noble or not) belief system. After all, it's only "for the children" - or for "everybody's own good".

Sound familiar?

[mlc9852]

Are you saying people who believe in God as the creator are ignorant? That's what most evos say. What are you all so afraid of? Why not let students make up their own minds? Afraid they will reject evolution like so many already have?

[Louis Foxwell]

Wonder IF he knows....

I think he knows. He may not know that he knows, but he knows. ;)

[Avenger]

"There are lot of things taught in school that are vague or two sided; nobody seems to get into a tizzy if we call our holiday Presidents day instead of Lincoln or Washington’s Birthday."

I don't have a problem with ID being taught in school; it could be taught in a philosophy or religious studies class - it could also be taught in a science course, but only as an example of a non-scientific theory. Why is it non-scientific? First because it is not testable: it is impossible to design a test which potentially falsifies the existence of an intelligent creator. Why is this the case? It has to do with the nature of random sequences and the fact that it is mathematically impossible to differentiate a random sequence from a non-random but highly complex sequence. The second show-stopper is that there is no scientific definition of "intelligence." How can we possibly study intelligent design when we don't even know how to define intelligence. It does not belong in a science class. If there are weaknesses with the way that evolution is taught in school then those need to be corrected. We don't solve the problem by adding more nonsense to the science education of our children.