774 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Intelligent design is pseudoscience. Don't fall into believing crap like it:

https://en.wikipedia...ign#Peer_review

In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".^[155] As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory".

endless Ad Hominem attacks. Deal with the subject sometime.

Where's the ad hominem? Intelligent Design is pseudoscience so you have been fooled, ha ha! :D

Your posts are full of ad hominem attacks, name calling and ridicule. This one is no exception. Your falacious, spiteful, name calling, of Intelligent Design is always without the slightest truth.

http://www.newworlde...elligent_design

“Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.

Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.

ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans).

ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy. “

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Listen again to an atheist.
http://www.longecity...post__p__493958

Edited by shadowhawk, 04 January 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[platypus]

Your posts are full of ad hominem attacks, name calling and ridicule. This one is no exception. Your falacious, spiteful, name calling, of Intelligent Design is always without the slightest truth.

You're trying to support Intelligent Design (ID) by referring only to ID sources?? LOL you creationists are funny. You're following a pseudoscientific cult, read the Wikipedia-article with some serious though please. I'm trying to do you a favor here, you're trusting pseudoscience believing that it is science. Sorry, it isn't and you're wrong and your pseudosources are filling your head with garbage. Now wisen up, stop reading creationist sources and try to study what is actually happening in the natural world, i.e. learn about evolution and why we know it's happening.

[shadowhawk]

Your posts are full of ad hominem attacks, name calling and ridicule. This one is no exception. Your falacious, spiteful, name calling, of Intelligent Design is always without the slightest truth.

You're trying to support Intelligent Design (ID) by referring only to ID sources?? LOL you creationists are funny. You're following a pseudoscientific cult, read the Wikipedia-article with some serious though please. I'm trying to do you a favor here, you're trusting pseudoscience believing that it is science. Sorry, it isn't and you're wrong and your pseudosources are filling your head with garbage. Now wisen up, stop reading creationist sources and try to study what is actually happening in the natural world, i.e. learn about evolution and why we know it's happening.

More of the same. Ho Hum. No substance at all. I have read Wikipedia. Needs revision and upgrading.

I take an Atheists word for intelligent design . http://www.longecity...post__p__493890 You never answered my question whether you agreed with Darwin's quote from "The Origon?"

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 January 2012 - 12:32 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Atheist Christopher Hitchens brother. Short video.

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 January 2012 - 12:25 AM.

[platypus]

Denial is strong in you, as in all cretinists. Did Jesus tell you science is evil & you need to start to tout pseudoscience like ID?

[shadowhawk]

Denial is strong in you, as in all cretinists. Did Jesus tell you science is evil & you need to start to tout pseudoscience like ID?

Endless Ad Hominem, illogical, attacks as usual. You are just one logical fallacy after another. For anyone who cares about what Intelligent Design is really about, the way to refute intelligent design is not by declaring it unscientific or pseudoscience, but by showing that the empirical evidence for design is not there. Check out what a non believer and Atheist says about it. http://www.longecity...post__p__493890

If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism – the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations - it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.

Here are several Intelligent design sources for the fair minded to check out.

1. http://www.discovery.org/
2. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
3. http://www.evolutionnews.org/
4. http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

Ridicule, name calling and other similar methods are just attempts to intimidate, bully, slander and silence people from sincere discourse. That is what brought me into this discussion when these same kinds of tactics were being used on fellow Theists earlier.

The subject is, the “Possibility of God.”

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 January 2012 - 11:19 PM.

[platypus]

I'm not going to delve deeper into sick ID propaganda. Where are the peer-reviewed articles in top science journals? Oh, ID produced none? LOL :D

You should be angry at those ID cultists who have tainted your mind and your worldview with their pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. Leave that dark shit behind and step into the light!

ps. This makes a fun reading, I'll pick some highlights for you: https://en.wikipedia...ign#Peer_review

The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal.^[142]

The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.^[147]

In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.^[151] There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke,^[152] which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.^[153]

As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity.

Edited by platypus, 06 January 2012 - 08:38 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I'm not going to delve deeper into sick ID propaganda. Where are the peer-reviewed articles in top science journals? Oh, ID produced none? LOL :D

You should be angry at those ID cultists who have tainted your mind and your worldview with their pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. Leave that dark shit behind and step into the light!

ps. This makes a fun reading, I'll pick some highlights for you: https://en.wikipedia...ign#Peer_review

The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal.^[142]

The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.^[147]

In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.^[151] There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke,^[152] which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.^[153]

As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity.

In the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Judge Jones ruled that a pro-intelligent design disclaimer cannot be read to public school students. In his decision, he gave demarcation criteria for what counts as science, ruling that intelligent design fails these criteria. Atheist, science philosopher Monton, Bradley in “Is Intelligent Design Science?” argues that these criteria are flawed, with most of his focus on the criterion of methodological naturalism. The way to refute intelligent design is not by declaring it unscientific, but by showing that the empirical evidence for design is not there. I made this point in my previous post. The case was not whether Intelligent Design is true or not but whether it is religious. There is nothing in science that says the only thing you can consider when doing science is philosophical naturalism.

Read the case made by Bradley Monton on Dover spicificlly here: http://www.arn.org/d...ign_science.pdf

As to whether real science is going on simply check out the sources I presented in my last post.
http://www.longecity...post__p__494154

Also see: http://www.arn.org/

Again, the way to refute intelligent design is not by declaring it unscientific or pseudoscience, but by showing that the empirical evidence for design is not there. This has not been done.

[shadowhawk]

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 January 2012 - 11:51 PM.

[Link]

Again, the way to refute intelligent design is not by declaring it unscientific or pseudoscience, but by showing that the empirical evidence for design is not there. This has not been done.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

- Bertrand Russell

[shadowhawk]

Again, the way to refute intelligent design is not by declaring it unscientific or pseudoscience, but by showing that the empirical evidence for design is not there. This has not been done.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

- Bertrand Russell

The old Flying Teapot suggestion. Along with more modern attempts like the Flying Purple Spaghetti Monster which was born in the intelligent design controversy, God is supposed to be imaginary and made up, just like these things. Atheists have been quite proud of these creations and think they prove something. A couple of comments are immediately obvious. First they are made up of real things. I assume you have used a real teacup and eaten real spaghetti. That you can even make it up, points to a underlying real reality. What poor old Bertrand could not know is there is a very real teacup flying between earth and Mars aboard the space shuttle. He was before its time. Imagine! Surely this proves God is not real the atheist thinks. What do you think sense you brought it up?

Here is a video of a debate where an atheist tries this on William Craig. The name of this game is “change the definition.”

[Link]

You need to decide whether you want to discuss:

Evolution Vs Intelligent Design

The existence of God Vs Atheism

The existence of God Vs The existence of a God as described in the Bible

[platypus]

ID is pseudoscientific bullshit as they have published nothing. Case closed.

[shadowhawk]

You need to decide whether you want to discuss:

Evolution Vs Intelligent Design

The existence of God Vs Atheism

The existence of God Vs The existence of a God as described in the Bible

Hmmm No more teacup discussion. OK.

1. Evolution Vs Intelligent Design. Go back and read all the posts related to evolution and you will discover I have always taken the position you can believe in evolution and God. I have taken several viewpoints showing how this can be done. Intelligent Design is only one of them. The issue is important to some when we consider whether God is Possible. So it is on topic.

2. The existence of God Vs Atheism. Part of the topic of God’s possibility. On topic.

3. The existence of God Vs The existence of God as described in the Bible. This is of interest to me but Theism is much larger than that. The first question is God Possible. That is what we have been arguing here. If the answer is yes, the second question is What is the Nature of God? Several Theists with different thoughts on God exist on line and I think It would make a great discussion. It would be off topic here.

[shadowhawk]

ID is pseudoscientific bullshit as they have published nothing. Case closed.

What profoundly Intelligent arguments. This response is sure proof against Intelligent Design. Perhaps you are right and we now have the empirical evidence against Intelligence.

[platypus]

ID is pseudoscientific bullshit as they have published nothing. Case closed.

What profoundly Intelligent arguments. This response is sure proof against Intelligent Design. Perhaps you are right and we now have the empirical evidence against Intelligence.

It's the only argument that matters. If you want to debunk it, please only refer to peer-reviewed articles published in top scientific journals.

Edited by platypus, 09 January 2012 - 11:00 PM.

[shadowhawk]

ID is pseudoscientific bullshit as they have published nothing. Case closed.

What profoundly Intelligent arguments. This response is sure proof against Intelligent Design. Perhaps you are right and we now have the empirical evidence against Intelligence.

It's the only argument that matters. If you want to debunk it, please only refer to peer-reviewed articles published in top scientific journals.

Let’s discuss the evidence.

BOOKS
http://www.amazon.co.../R2CMMPVD49VFHC
http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0830815813
http://en.wikipedia....nt_design_books
http://books.google....id=6_ECd6Me8vQC

PEER REVIEWS
“Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals -- as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books -- including Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, Newton's Principia, and Darwin's Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.

We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design. The articles are grouped according to the type of publication. The first section lists featured articles of various types which are of higher interest to readers, which is then followed by a complete list of the articles. The featured articles are therefore listed twice on this page (once in the featured articles section and again below in the complete list).”
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
http://www.evolution...rrev003458.html
http://dennisdjones....ience-journals/

INTERNET SOURCES.
http://www.religious....org/ev_id4.htm
http://www.intellige...org/science.php

[shadowhawk]

platypus: It's the only argument that matters. If you want to debunk it, please only refer to peer-reviewed articles published in top scientific journals.

Oh by the way since you have never done this, please only refer to peer-reviewed articles published in top scientific journals when addressing (debunking) Intelligent Design. Also tell me why your many Ad Hominem attacks are the only arguments that matter. I am sure this all comes from some scientific journal also. What total nonsense

Edited by shadowhawk, 10 January 2012 - 01:49 AM.

[nupi]

Intelligent Design is ludicrous enough that one would hope there being no debunking of it in top journals, that space can be used for more fruitful research.

[shadowhawk]

Intelligent Design is ludicrous enough that one would hope there being no debunking of it in top journals, that space can be used for more fruitful research.

Wrong. I was being set up to only quote top scientific research journals regarding Intelligent Design. Nonsense. Sense most journals report research being done they do not generally cover exhaustively possible interpretations of the results. Such a restriction cuts off inquiry.

1. Interpretations of research by scientists and others are more often found in other types of media. Such an attempt is designed to cut off discussion. Notice no real arguments were presented.
2. Where did the rule you can only find truth in such sources come from? Truth can come from any source, do you deny this?.
3. Ad Hominem attacks again. Not one bit of evidence from someone clocking themselves in science. Appeals to emotion and name calling are part of Atheism’s standard appeals and there is no exception here.
4. You are ignoring what should be a common cause, Truth. SCIENCE IS A PROCESS NOT A POSITION as many Atheists ignore. True to bigotry you want to silence people you disagree with while claiming only you are scientific. You have not scientifically disproved Intelligent Design.

[nupi]

Pink unicorn meet intelligent design.

[shadowhawk]

Pink unicorn meet intelligent design.

How profound! Can tell you have really thouight about it.

[platypus]

ID is pseudoscientific bullshit as they have published nothing. Case closed.

What profoundly Intelligent arguments. This response is sure proof against Intelligent Design. Perhaps you are right and we now have the empirical evidence against Intelligence.

It's the only argument that matters. If you want to debunk it, please only refer to peer-reviewed articles published in top scientific journals.

Let’s discuss the evidence.

Yeah, lets. How come ID has't published any in the scienitific literature? It's pseudoscience, pure and simple. Don't defend evil!

[platypus]

platypus: It's the only argument that matters. If you want to debunk it, please only refer to peer-reviewed articles published in top scientific journals.

Oh by the way since you have never done this, please only refer to peer-reviewed articles published in top scientific journals when addressing (debunking) Intelligent Design. Also tell me why your many Ad Hominem attacks are the only arguments that matter. I am sure this all comes from some scientific journal also. What total nonsense

ID has debunked itself. No scientific publications = it's not science. Don't defend evil!

[shadowhawk]

platypus: It's the only argument that matters. If you want to debunk it, please only refer to peer-reviewed articles published in top scientific journals.

Oh by the way since you have never done this, please only refer to peer-reviewed articles published in top scientific journals when addressing (debunking) Intelligent Design. Also tell me why your many Ad Hominem attacks are the only arguments that matter. I am sure this all comes from some scientific journal also. What total nonsense

ID has debunked itself. No scientific publications = it's not science. Don't defend evil!

WHERE ARE YOURS?

[platypus]

ID has debunked itself. No scientific publications = it's not science. Don't defend evil!

WHERE ARE YOURS?

Dude you've lost. You can start here & pick anything with "biology" or "gene"-something in the journal title and it will be full of articles depending on non-ID evolution:

http://www.nature.co...ndex/index.html

Edited by platypus, 12 January 2012 - 07:14 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Dude, I did a search on intelloigent design and all I got was two pages with less than a half dozen related news articles. Who are you trying to kid. Nothing here that disproves intelligent design in any way. What a joke and you think you won something with this! This has nothing to do with peer review.

[Link]

shadowhawk, perhaps if you could explain in your own words (i.e. without simply cutting and pasting videos and links to external websites) exactly how you believe intelligent design is superior to evolution in explaining the diversity of life on Earth. Specifically what do you believe are the holes in evolutionary theory which cannot be explained by anything other than a divine creator? Again, no propaganda videos please, explain it in simple straight forward English.

[nupi]

Dude, I did a search on intelloigent design and all I got was two pages with less than a half dozen related news articles. Who are you trying to kid. Nothing here that disproves intelligent design in any way. What a joke and you think you won something with this! This has nothing to do with peer review.

There is not an ounce of evidence to support it, either. Kind of like the lack of any evidence for that intelligent designer that supposedly has a gene labor up in the clouds.

[platypus]

Dude, I did a search on intelloigent design and all I got was two pages with less than a half dozen related news articles. Who are you trying to kid. Nothing here that disproves intelligent design in any way. What a joke and you think you won something with this! This has nothing to do with peer review.

Have you considered that perhaps a demon has clouded your perception in these issues? I hear demon possession is a common problem with Christians.

I'll repeat myself just in case i can get past your personal demons: ID is not a scientific theory since it has not produced any peer-reviewed publications. These are the facts, now deal with them.