The universe is proof of god!

[Random Person]

Is there still an ID crowd?

Sadly, there are places where someone can still run on a "I will throw godless evolution out of schools" ticket. Or a 'teach the controversy' ticket, or a 'I will waste lots of city/state money in court refighting this silly fight over and over and over' but they'll win THIS time because 'god's on our side.'

That's the rub. ID gets too close to indicating a god that it gets rejected on an anti religious basis. It's sort of like the priests that refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

 

[Random Person]

I asked you:
Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

When a proposition is unfalsifiable, it fails because it can't be tested. The sun exists. How can scientists prove it wasn't intelligently designed? Even after being able to show all of the natural processes involved in its life cycle, can't disprove it wasn't intelligently designed.

I don't know if the sun is the subject of the design argument. Mostly it centers around life It gives the "appearance" of design. If ID isn't possible then why not prove demonstrate it scientifically?

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's the point I am making. If you reject something out of hand, you can't also say it's been scientifically invalidated.

Then it's a silly point.

Asking for someone to do science by the rules of science is not rejecting it 'out of hand.'

Further, when the claim is along the lines of 'the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution,' they're rejected on sight. This is still not rejecting the claim 'out of hand,' it's something easily identified as a PRATT.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's the rub. ID gets too close to indicating a god that it gets rejected on an anti religious basis. It's sort of like the priests that refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

It's not 'a rub.' It's a feature.
People have not refused to look in ID's telescope. They've looked. They just don't find anything in the viewfinder...

 

[Keith&Co.]

If ID isn't possible then why not prove demonstrate it scientifically?

Wrong question. Critics of ID do not say that it isn't possible.
They DO say 'you haven't proven your case,' because of where the burden of proof actually lies.

 

[skepticalbip]

Is there still an ID crowd?

Sadly, there are places where someone can still run on a "I will throw godless evolution out of schools" ticket. Or a 'teach the controversy' ticket, or a 'I will waste lots of city/state money in court refighting this silly fight over and over and over' but they'll win THIS time because 'god's on our side.'

That's the rub. ID gets too close to indicating a god that it gets rejected on an anti religious basis. It's sort of like the priests that refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

It doesn't "get close to indicating a god". It offers nothing but "I don't understand this so 'goddidit'". If they offered some evidence to consider then it would be considered. Them not understanding something is not evidence of anything but their ignorance of that thing.

 

[Random Person]

That's the rub. ID gets too close to indicating a god that it gets rejected on an anti religious basis. It's sort of like the priests that refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

It doesn't "get close to indicating a god". It offers nothing but "I don't understand this so 'goddidit'". If they offered some evidence to consider then it would be considered. Them not understanding something is not evidence of anything but their ignorance of that thing.

Even Dawkins says life gives the appearance of design. In context he wasn't claiming design he was saying it gives the appearance. He also stipulated that if design were true then he would credit aliens and that a god wasn't possible.

You are making my point by the "godddit" comment. ID doesn't establish a god.

 

[skepticalbip]

Even Dawkins says life gives the appearance of design. In context he wasn't claiming design he was saying it gives the appearance. He also stipulated that if design were true then he would credit aliens and that a god wasn't possible.

Was there a point in there somewhere?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Even Dawkins says life gives the appearance of design. In context he wasn't claiming design he was saying it gives the appearance.

Yes. But evolution, as a process of undirected 'trial and error' would function as a design process. So 'the appearance of design' means squat diddly as far as establishing facts.

You are making my point by the "godddit" comment. ID doesn't establish a god.

Did you pay ANY attention to the Dover Trial? The ID book they submitted was a transparently edited creationist book.

ID doesn't 'establish' a god, but it does try to pretend it doesn't depend on a god.

Ever glance at the 'Wedge document?'

 

[Elixir]

ID doesn't establish a god.

ID doesn't establish ANYTHING. Except maybe that humans are not omniscient, and many are stupid - big revelation.
Dawkins (who is overly strident IMHO) correctly notes that the results of many natural processes, when observed by humans, evokes automatic perceptions of design where there is none. That is not a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods.

Ever glance at the 'Wedge document?'

Lol! the creo equivalent of the Nixon tapes... intent to deceive blatantly expressed.

 

[Random Person]

ID doesn't establish a god.

ID doesn't establish ANYTHING. Except maybe that humans are not omniscient, and many are stupid - big revelation.
Dawkins (who is overly strident IMHO) correctly notes that the results of many natural processes, when observed by humans, evokes automatic perceptions of design where there is none. That is not a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods.

Ever glance at the 'Wedge document?'

Lol! the creo equivalent of the Nixon tapes... intent to deceive blatantly expressed.

I agree it isn't a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods. When it appears something is occurring, Don't we normally study it to see if our perceptions are true? That how science works.

- - - Updated - - -

Even Dawkins says life gives the appearance of design. In context he wasn't claiming design he was saying it gives the appearance.

Yes. But evolution, as a process of undirected 'trial and error' would function as a design process. So 'the appearance of design' means squat diddly as far as establishing facts.

You are making my point by the "godddit" comment. ID doesn't establish a god.

Did you pay ANY attention to the Dover Trial? The ID book they submitted was a transparently edited creationist book.

ID doesn't 'establish' a god, but it does try to pretend it doesn't depend on a god.

Ever glance at the 'Wedge document?'

Was the Dover trial decided by a judge or a scientist?

- - - Updated - - -

Even Dawkins says life gives the appearance of design. In context he wasn't claiming design he was saying it gives the appearance. He also stipulated that if design were true then he would credit aliens and that a god wasn't possible.

Was there a point in there somewhere?

That's funny. You can find points in an infinite time line but no where else.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When it appears something is occurring, Don't we normally study it to see if our perceptions are true? That how science works.

Okay.
But IDers have yet to make a good case that 'something' is occurring. At least, not any 'something' that isn't already adequately explained by existing theories.


That is how science works.

Theories are in place and remain in place unless and until someone produces evidence that the theory cannot explain. It will be replaced by a theory that explains the new evidence AND all the existing evidence that supported the previous theory.

 

[Elixir]

ID doesn't establish ANYTHING. Except maybe that humans are not omniscient, and many are stupid - big revelation.
Dawkins (who is overly strident IMHO) correctly notes that the results of many natural processes, when observed by humans, evokes automatic perceptions of design where there is none. That is not a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods.



Lol! the creo equivalent of the Nixon tapes... intent to deceive blatantly expressed.

I agree it isn't a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods. When it appears something is occurring, Don't we normally study it to see if our perceptions are true? That how science works.

- - - Updated - - -

Even Dawkins says life gives the appearance of design. In context he wasn't claiming design he was saying it gives the appearance.

Yes. But evolution, as a process of undirected 'trial and error' would function as a design process. So 'the appearance of design' means squat diddly as far as establishing facts.

You are making my point by the "godddit" comment. ID doesn't establish a god.

Did you pay ANY attention to the Dover Trial? The ID book they submitted was a transparently edited creationist book.

ID doesn't 'establish' a god, but it does try to pretend it doesn't depend on a god.

Ever glance at the 'Wedge document?'

Was the Dover trial decided by a judge or a scientist?

Would you want it decided by a scientist, who likely wouldn't even consider any argument from creo pseudo-scientists, or would you prefer a judge who would query and consider arguments from both the scientists and the creos?

 

[Random Person]

When it appears something is occurring, Don't we normally study it to see if our perceptions are true? That how science works.

Okay.
But IDers have yet to make a good case that 'something' is occurring. At least, not any 'something' that isn't already adequately explained by existing theories.


That is how science works.

Theories are in place and remain in place unless and until someone produces evidence that the theory cannot explain. It will be replaced by a theory that explains the new evidence AND all the existing evidence that supported the previous theory.

How did life begin?

 

[skepticalbip]

ID doesn't establish ANYTHING. Except maybe that humans are not omniscient, and many are stupid - big revelation.
Dawkins (who is overly strident IMHO) correctly notes that the results of many natural processes, when observed by humans, evokes automatic perceptions of design where there is none. That is not a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods.



Lol! the creo equivalent of the Nixon tapes... intent to deceive blatantly expressed.

I agree it isn't a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods. When it appears something is occurring, Don't we normally study it to see if our perceptions are true? That how science works.

Absolutely. That is what spurred the study that eventually became the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Random Person]

I agree it isn't a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods. When it appears something is occurring, Don't we normally study it to see if our perceptions are true? That how science works.

- - - Updated - - -

Even Dawkins says life gives the appearance of design. In context he wasn't claiming design he was saying it gives the appearance.

Yes. But evolution, as a process of undirected 'trial and error' would function as a design process. So 'the appearance of design' means squat diddly as far as establishing facts.

You are making my point by the "godddit" comment. ID doesn't establish a god.

Did you pay ANY attention to the Dover Trial? The ID book they submitted was a transparently edited creationist book.

ID doesn't 'establish' a god, but it does try to pretend it doesn't depend on a god.

Ever glance at the 'Wedge document?'

Was the Dover trial decided by a judge or a scientist?

Would you want it decided by a scientist, who likely wouldn't even consider any argument from creo pseudo-scientists, or would you prefer a judge who would query and consider arguments from both the scientists and the creos?

Was the argument whether or not to teach ID in schools or whether to research ID?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Was the Dover trial decided by a judge or a scientist?

Scientists testified on both sides. The judge decided the evidence supporting the claim that ID was just dressed-up creationism was compelling, thus a violation of Church/State Separation.

How do you think 'a scientist' would have decided any differently, based on the same evidence provided?

 

[Random Person]

ID doesn't establish ANYTHING. Except maybe that humans are not omniscient, and many are stupid - big revelation.
Dawkins (who is overly strident IMHO) correctly notes that the results of many natural processes, when observed by humans, evokes automatic perceptions of design where there is none. That is not a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods.



Lol! the creo equivalent of the Nixon tapes... intent to deceive blatantly expressed.

I agree it isn't a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods. When it appears something is occurring, Don't we normally study it to see if our perceptions are true? That how science works.

Absolutely. That is what spurred the study that eventually became the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE has changed substantially over time to allow for new insights.

 

[Elixir]

I agree it isn't a commentary on the existence or non-existence of gods. When it appears something is occurring, Don't we normally study it to see if our perceptions are true? That how science works.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. But evolution, as a process of undirected 'trial and error' would function as a design process. So 'the appearance of design' means squat diddly as far as establishing facts.

You are making my point by the "godddit" comment. ID doesn't establish a god.

Did you pay ANY attention to the Dover Trial? The ID book they submitted was a transparently edited creationist book.

ID doesn't 'establish' a god, but it does try to pretend it doesn't depend on a god.

Ever glance at the 'Wedge document?'

Was the Dover trial decided by a judge or a scientist?

Would you want it decided by a scientist, who likely wouldn't even consider any argument from creo pseudo-scientists, or would you prefer a judge who would query and consider arguments from both the scientists and the creos?

Was the argument whether or not to teach ID in schools or whether to research ID?

I'm not here to spoon feed you. IIRC it was about whether "ID" was a scientific hypothesis. It's not, according scientists. And the judge, after hearing both sides, agreed with the scientists.
Why don't you read about it yourself?

 

[Keith&Co.]

How did life begin?

Good question. There are various theories.
But ultimately we don't know.


Yet.