Re: Intelligent design" makes the 2005 Google Zeitgeist:

seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I see "Intelligent design" made the 2005 Google Zeitgeist:
> http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
> After looking at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
> I decided things had finally gone too far:
>
> There are specific theories of intelligent design, just as
> there are specific theories of origin through natural means.
> Not all such theories have been refuted - so there remains
> the possibiltity that life on earth contains elements that
> were designed by an advanced intelligence.

Ah yes. "Advanced intelligence". A phrase so vague, so impossible to
distinguish, that it defies not only the religion from which ID sprang
but the continuity of thought surrounding it! God, Space Aliens, Men
from the Future, Extra-Dimensional Beings.. take your pick. They are
all equally valid. Only bias can decide which one's the truth.

Since you appear to be convinced that ID is science then how do you
propose we test for the existence of these things? You can't do it
through the process of elimination because there are infinite
possibilities (ie. who designed the designer?). You can't do it
through indirect observation because there is no logical inference that
can be drawn between what we observe and why we observe it when the
designer may change the parameters of our observation at any time.
Claiming that life "appears too complex" is a argument from incredulity
and is invalid in this context. And no experiment can ever be devised
to demonstrates that something is impossible (such as the rise of
bacterial flagellum).

Pretend for a moment that you are a naturalist, living hundreds of
years ago, pioneering the concept of the scientific method. The more
you dig the more you find that in order to truly know anything (proof
transcending belief) your questions must remain refutable. At first
this seems to go against common sense in thinking that facts must be
irrefutable, but you realize that is not the case. Then like a
thunderbolt the epiphany strikes you! In order for facts to remain
refutable they must be Testable. Without the ability to test you can
never refute and without the ability to refute any number of facts may
be true. In light of an infinite number of irreproachable
possibilities logic and reason fall to the wayside.

So why Evolution and not ID? Simple. Every aspect of evolution is
testable through direct and indirect observation, comparison, analogy
and logical inference where as no part of ID is testable in any way
shape or form. That, in the simplest terms possible, is why evolution
is science and ID is not. Now in Judge Jones' case he went further
into describing the relationship between ID and modern Christianity and
proponents obviousness in attempting to inject a religiously biased
concept into the curriculum of a public school and pass it off as fact.

Frankly I don't give a shit about that. I think it's enough to simply
say ID is not science and keep it out of the science classroom.


(snip)
> My council to scientists would be to ignore this ruling.
> Judges are clearly poorly qualified to rule on scientific
> subjects.

The judge's rulling was based on council from real scientists. This
would seem to trump your own.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How Honest a "Science" is Intelligent Design?
    ... Origin is beyond the scope of evolution. ... Science doesn't have to be charitable. ... How about the nuclear scientists that told children to ... You produce your Evolutioner and I'll produce my designer... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 7 reasons to avoid, at all costs, wasting the price of a ticket to Expelled
    ... Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup. ... ID and against "big science." ... "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who ... so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: 7 reasons to avoid, at all costs, wasting the price of a ticket to Expelled
    ... Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup. ... ID and against "big science." ... "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who ... so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: How Honest a "Science" is Intelligent Design?
    ... Origin is beyond the scope of evolution. ... fairer to acccept that they do not wish to do science at all. ... IIRC, that was civil defense officials, not scientists. ... You produce your Evolutioner and I'll produce my designer... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What does ID have to offer to the scientific community?
    ... I was under the impression that most scientists who have any hypothesis ... I think science has produced rather more than that. ... not explanation for biological phenomena. ... There is *NO* reason to insist that a designer be supernatural. ...
    (talk.origins)