Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

1) "They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC)." In the sciences, the terms must not be ambiguous. You cannot form a researchable question upon ambiguous terms. The term "irreducible complexity" assumes the observation and the desired conclusion.

Slam dunk.

I have yet to find 1 legitimate Science Organization through all my googling on a certain person's subjects that back there is any real science involved at all with intelligent design.

Intelligent design – a war on science.
The “War on Science” documentary showed that there is no real controversy within science about evolution. This battle is actually occurring in the non-scientific world – the courtrooms, school boards, politics and the battle for the hearts of minds of the non-scientific population. Robert T. Pennock, professor of history and philosophy of science at Michigan State University, USA, pointed out that “at its base [the creation/evolution debate] is about religion and it is about philosophy.”

Intelligent design/creationism may indeed be carrying out a war on science, but it is not a controversy within science. If anything it is a conflict within religion.

Cheers.

I have yet to find 1 legitimate Science Organization through all my googling on a certain person's subjects that back there is any real science involved at all with intelligent design.

True, but give credit where it's due. Science does involve intelligent design.

Scientists work on issues to solve the particular problem they're working on.

They all intelligently gather to design a method to work on that problem.

---

I have yet to find 1 legitimate Science Organization through all my googling on a certain person's subjects that back there is any real science involved at all with intelligent design.

True, but give credit where it's due. Science does involve intelligent design.

Scientists work on issues to solve the particular problem they're working on.

They all intelligently gather to design a method to work on that problem.

Well I was going to capitalise "intelligent design" but I don't these people associated with that particular movement deserve capitalisation.

I will agree with what you said though. ;-)

Cheers.

Again true, but you're missing our points. I.D. has posted as well as on his profile that he has a deep faith.

That should not be mocked as one way or another, we all have our own beliefs.
What defies all logic is that with a faith that deep especially one that involves the Roman Catholic Church, ID and Catholicism are mutually exclusive.

One can only have one or the other. What ID is saying is that because we debunk Intelligent Design, we're mocking his faith.

Also where are his facts? All we are seeing is an internet project that is scamming people, they cherry pick genuine articles to suit their own purposes.

If as requested many times ID provides facts that can be verifiable without resorting to Discovery.org, maybe he will get genuine replies to his posts.

---

I'm sorry Guy, but you won't change my mind on this particular subject as it is not Science.

Here's a quote of mine from another thread and I'll highlight the appropriate part from the horse's mouth,

Intelligent design and scientific method
Posted on January 7, 2008 | 15 Comments

The intelligent design movement (ID) is not a school of scientific research – more a political, social and religious movement. IDs initiator and main theological guru, Phillip Johnson, admitted this in 1996 when he said: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science . . . It’s about religion and philosophy.”

Now that should say it all, end of story.

Cheers.

I'm sorry Guy, but you won't change my mind on this particular subject as it is not Science.

Here's a quote of mine from another thread and I'll highlight the appropriate part from the horse's mouth,

Intelligent design and scientific method
Posted on January 7, 2008 | 15 Comments

The intelligent design movement (ID) is not a school of scientific research – more a political, social and religious movement. IDs initiator and main theological guru, Phillip Johnson, admitted this in 1996 when he said: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science . . . It’s about religion and philosophy.”

Now that should say it all, end of story.

Cheers.

...and religious threads are best suited to the politics board!

---

Agreed but only when they start using scientific methods without bringing religion into the equation.

---

Oh how wrong you are. At this moment in time the I.D. supporters have done absolutely no science, and the theories they have put about to support their claims have all been dis-proved.

All the people you mention and add those that put forward the ideas and data that eventually became known as continental drift and plate tectonics. They all published papers that were accepted enough, that others thought they had some merit, even if the majority rejected there ideas at the time.

The Discovery Institute has not got that far yet, by that I mean no papers submitted, accepted, peer reviewed and published*. Until those stages are complete intelligent design is not science.

*There was one paper published but this is known as the Sternberg peer review controversy. And can therefore be rejected.

*There was one paper published but this is known as the Sternberg peer review controversy. And can therefore be rejected.

Taken from the link provided with regards to ID's founder Richard M Sternberg.....

"He is a Roman Catholic "who attends Mass."[10]

Although he subscribes to the process structuralism school of thought[11] and says he is not a proponent of intelligent design,[12] Sternberg believes intelligent design should be part of the discussion about evolution and the origin of life on Earth."

That is against all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the Bible, so he has to be a hypocrite.

It has only been in recent years that the church agreed that it would be more beneficial for religion and science to work together. Why?

Sciences either proves or disproves. Just what does religion do?

Let's see, pit brother against brother, race against race and all because of distant mythical fables from the past and written in some inconsistent little book.

---

Again true, but you're missing our points. I.D. has posted as well as on his profile that he has a deep faith.

That should not be mocked as one way or another, we all have our own beliefs.
What defies all logic is that with a faith that deep especially one that involves the Roman Catholic Church, ID and Catholicism are mutually exclusive.

One can only have one or the other. What ID is saying is that because we debunk Intelligent Design, we're mocking his faith.

Also where are his facts? All we are seeing is an internet project that is scamming people, they cherry pick genuine articles to suit their own purposes.

If as requested many times ID provides facts that can be verifiable without resorting to Discovery.org, maybe he will get genuine replies to his posts.

You really need to come off this pointless point you hold of me.

I can have both beliefs. Just as one in the Catholic Faith can hold onto Darwinsim, as I pointed out to you in this piece... "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) was the president of the Commission at the time."


63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Now, if one can hold the belief in Darwinsim why am I not allowed--BY YOU to hold the belief in Intelligent Design? You have no right at all to tell me what I can believe and what I cannot believe. I am Catholic and have studied my Faith. You however seem not to understand my Faith at all. Note how I call it my Faith and not your Faith. When you show me you follow my Faith Ill change my attitude.

It's time you seperate your feelings about me from what I post. As it is long past time for all the others to do the same.

Stop...
Argument from fallacy

Argument from ignorance

Begging the question

Circular cause and consequence

Cherry picking

Ad hominem

Poisoning the well

Appeal to fear

Straw man

non sequitur

M'kay? All of the above makes you look very un-intelligent.

Thank you. :-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

If god created us, Darwinism and Intelligent Design are but a nightmare of Man's overthinking brain.

To accept Darwin and Intelligent Design is to refute god, so which came first?

The Chicken or the Egg?

---

"Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) was the president of the Commission at the time."


With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

I completely disagree with this statement. We are not the only ones.

This also has been either translated from German or Latin, so there could be some free license on some parts of the translation.

---

Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt

The topic is "ID uses circular reasoning, and is therefore not science". Specifically, the term "irreducible complexity" is ambiguous and, most importantly, assumes both the observation and the conclusion. Please return to topic. :)

I should take my own advice and got to bed.
Sarge do you have a problem with my post?
I have no problem with the 10 Comandments, regardless where they came from.
In my mind related, but to most of you, possibly of topic.

---

Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt

Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

1) "They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC)." In the sciences, the terms must not be ambiguous. You cannot form a researchable question upon ambiguous terms. The term "irreducible complexity" assumes the observation and the desired conclusion.

Evolution is not mentioned in this post.
Religion/faith is not mentioned in this post.
This post succinctly and eloquently provides the slam dunk: ID is NOT science. Using their own words, we examine their terminology ... their operational terms. Their operational terms are not well-defined. The term "irreducible complexity" jumps straight to the desired conclusion of "intelligent design". Very unscientific. At its very core. No post here has denied that nor shown it to be in error.
Slam ... dunk ... game over.
If it wasn't flawed at its very core, we could examine the fact that they do not conduct experiments but instead analyze the experiments of others from their own "understanding" and desire to show that there is "IC" and "ID". But, because it is flawed at its very core, it's not even worth following up on this part.

This subject goes round and round and ends up nowhere. I guess it does make a nice space filler. I.D. doesn't want to face up to the fact that science and religion don't mix and the rest of us will never convince him.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.