creation museum (3 Viewers)

[Space]

Nah dude, there's tonnes of people trying to prove it scientifically, largely by trying to disprove other theories.

But really, no, it's not science.
IMHO!!

Trying to prove it, but have they found any scientific evidence for it?

 

[aoboa]

intelligent design is being put forward by scientists, physicists, chemists and biologists, as an alternative to evolutionary theory.

There are many prominent, atheist and agnostic, as well as christian, scientists who are working on the theory.

And belief is just belief. Some philosophers would suggest that apples don't exist, and that you can't prove that they do.

Stop mixing up science and philosophy.
What prominent atheist and agnostic scientists are working on proofs?
Can you link me to some names?
How are they doing with it?

 

[snakybus]

the whole thing of intelligent design is that it has a supernatural element to it

no matter which way you look at this, you can't align this with science and, in particular, biology, which is the study of nature

supernatural means above nature, i.e., not adhering to the rules of nature

it's a logical fallacy

so it can't be science, in the way that we understand science

not that science is that great, mind

it's okay, like, but not great

 

[taubstumm]

intelligent design is being put forward by scientists, physicists, chemists and biologists, as an alternative to evolutionary theory.

There are many prominent, atheist and agnostic, as well as christian, scientists who are working on the theory.

squiggle, that's rubbish. people working on intelligent design are, more or less, american evangelical christians, their p.r. companies, and front organisations. any actual scientists involved are few and far between, and most of them are of the dr.-nick-riviera-hollywood-upstairs-medical-college sort.

 

[taubstumm]

from wikipedia, inevitably:

In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[144] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."

 

[Squiggle]

Stop mixing up science and philosophy.
What prominent atheist and agnostic scientists are working on proofs?
Can you link me to some names?
How are they doing with it?

This has some stuff that might be of interest. There are other groups too. This particular one is specifically non-religious.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/publications.htm

 

[snakybus]

from wikipedia, inevitably:

check out how I said it before snthr

see, I'm smart!

science is for squares though

 

[aoboa]

Squiggle, do you just want to believe in this? Cos if so then that's cool. I can totally understand people wanting to believe in it.
Do you feel it on a gut/spiritual level? If so, why try to defend it by claiming there may be a scientific element to it?

 

[Squiggle]

squiggle, that's rubbish. people working on intelligent design are, more or less, american evangelical christians, their p.r. companies, and front organisations. any actual scientists involved are few and far between, and most of them are of the dr.-nick-riviera-hollywood-upstairs-medical-college sort.

Such emotive responses! "Bullshit", "bullshit", "rubbish".

Generalisations and presumptions. The burden of proof is there. Either disprove a theory conclusively or leave it alone.

Snaky is right though... the supernatural element does cause a conflict and raise questions about whether it is truely a scientific theory... then again, many things which we understand clearly now, like magneticism, were once considered supernatural.

 

[taubstumm]

Generalisations and presumptions. The burden of proof is there. Either disprove a theory conclusively or leave it alone.

but that's the entire point: creationism/'intelligent design' is unfalsifiable - it can't be disproven because it postulates the answer before it asks the question. as wolfgang pauli said: it's not only not right, it's not even wrong.

 

[snakybus]

Good ol' Wolfgang.

 

[magicbastarder]

This has some stuff that might be of interest. There are other groups too. This particular one is specifically non-religious.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/publications.htm

maybe i don't understand intelligent design, but i don't understand how you can separate religion and ID. ID calls on a 'higher power'; that is religious.

 

[zebra heart attack]

Either disprove a theory conclusively or leave it alone.

if you had a photo album of your family history and the picture of your grandmother was missing. does that mean there was a sudden jump from your great grandmother to your mother?

very few species have been fossilized. we can only theorize the link from A -> E -> O -> Z. but as it stands everything agrees with evolution. in my opinion anyone who says otherwise is generally biased by religious beliefs.

intelligent design only arose after the major religions had to modify their beliefs to fit in with what science was finding. remember they used to literally believe that the world was built in seven days (or six).

 

[Dixer]

C&Ping articles from the Onion is hella lame, I agree but

I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, EXCEPT FOR THE WHOLE TRIASSIC PERIOD
By Stephen Jossler
May 30, 2007 | Issue 43•22

I consider myself a rational person. When I have a question, I turn to science and logic to find the answer. Regarding the origins of life, science tells us that humans evolved from single-celled organisms to our current form through a process of natural selection that took billions of years.
This much is clear to anyone with any background in modern thinking. We can look at the fossil record and trace many of our genetic traits back to ancient species. In fact, scientific reasoning can explain nearly every stage of life from the Big Bang to the present day. I say "nearly" because the period that scientists claim lasted from roughly 205 to 250 million years ago, commonly known as the Triassic period, was quite obviously the work of the Lord God Almighty.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not one of those religious nut cases who denies that evolution is real. Of course evolution is real, just not during the "Triassic period."
This so-called Triassic period saw the formation of scleractinian corals and a slight changeover from warm-blooded therapsids to cold-blooded archosauromorphs. Clearly, such breathtakingly subtle modifications could only have been achieved by an active intelligence.
The secular Triassicists would have you believe that these changes were just the result of millions of years of nature favoring certain genes over others in order to adapt, the same way evolution worked prior to the Triassic. Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. Think about it: I'm supposed to believe that the same process that we know slowly changed us from simple bacteria into highly advanced reptiles over the course of the Paleozoic era is also responsible for turning us into highly advanced reptiles with different body lengths? Do these people ever pause to think how ridiculous they sound as they advance these theories?
For a half-dozen million years, life advanced from prokaryotes to primitive fish to mammal-like reptiles via natural selection, and we're supposed to believe that that just continued happening? I don't think so. Isn't it much more likely that a formless, invisible deity intervened, temporarily stopped the course of evolution, and shaped each and every trilobite over a period of six days? Of course it is, at least to any objective observer.
So, if you follow my reasoning to its logical end, the only sound conclusion is that, at some point, God paused evolution and stepped in, made a few modifications, and boom! Pterosaurs. There is simply no way evolution alone could be responsible for the giant leap between archosaurs and other, different archosaurs with better developed hip joints and slightly differently shaped teeth.
Everything about the Triassic period points to divine involvement. Let me ask you this: Could some kind of random genetic chance make the population of shelled cephalopods grow significantly? No, of course not. So the only logical explanation is that there was an infinite and all-knowing cephalopod creator who modified their mollusk foot into a muscular hydrostat that eventually, on the sixth day, became a tentacle.
So, when I tell you that after the Paleozoic era, Ceratodon lungfish became relatively common, it naturally follows that someone created that lungfish by hand and then took out one of its lungfish ribs and combined it with the dust of the Earth to create a female lungfish.
In the beginning, there were a few billion years of speciation and gene drift. And then nothing. And then, God made the lungfish and the trilobites, the ichthyosaurs and ammonoids with more complex suture patterns. He also made a couple new ferns.
And the Lord saw that these slight modifications were good, and allowed evolution to resume as normal in the Jurassic period and on up to the present day.
Now that I've inarguably proven the truth, we need to take a stand against these pseudoscientists who are misrepresenting 300-million-year-old fossils as 230-million-year-old fossils and claiming the Earth is 44 million years and 51 weeks older than it really is.
We need to get the Triassic period expunged from our public schools' evolutionary textbooks. I don't want my children to be exposed to this blasphemous Triassic garbage, and I assume you don't want your children to be, either. They need to know that God is watching over them always, and that he has a plan for each and every one of them—a nonlinear, probabilistic plan he set in motion more than three billion years ago with single-celled organisms, ended with a group of small, lizard-like herbivores, infused with a bunch of miracles, and then restarted.
We can no longer ignore the empirical evidence.

 

[Squiggle]

maybe i don't understand intelligent design, but i don't understand how you can separate religion and ID. ID calls on a 'higher power'; that is religious.

Not necessarily. ID suggests that humanity aren't the smartest thing in the universe, and that there could be a being, or beings that are superior to us who created us and the world we live in.

Religion is a completely different kettle of fish, it implies worship, rituals etc.

 

[taubstumm]

Not necessarily. ID suggests that humanity aren't the smartest thing in the universe, and that there could be a being, or beings that are superior to us who created us and the world we live in.

Religion is a completely different kettle of fish, it implies worship, rituals etc.

both rely on a dude in the sky

 

[Squiggle]

both rely on a dude in the sky

They do? Explain.

 

[taubstumm]

They do? Explain.

what you just said:

ID suggests that humanity aren't the smartest thing in the universe, and that there could be a being, or beings that are superior to us who created us and the world we live in.

sounds pretty dude-in-the-sky-ish to me

 

[snakybus]

or dudette, tom

I thought you were a feminist!

 

[Squiggle]

what you just said:

sounds pretty dude-in-the-sky-ish to me

A drop of water contains living organisms that bear little or no resemblance to us, who's to say we don't inhabit someone else's 'drop of water'.

Sorry, philosophising again.