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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!!
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
Generalisations and presumptions. The burden of proof is there. Either disprove a theory conclusively or leave it alone.
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.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
Either disprove a theory conclusively or leave it alone.
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.
both rely on a dude in the sky
They do? Explain.
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.
what you just said:
sounds pretty dude-in-the-sky-ish to me
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.