Some suggestion and ideas on Intelignet Design questions please?

Question

I would like to post some intelligent design questions in the Biology section to see what happens. I want a serious (ok don't laugh) question, say something about irreducible complexity. The problem is that my scientific mind won't let me think of how to pose such a question and make it look genuine.

Can you please make some suggestions as to what I could post?

Answer 1

ask them to explain how if ID is not true then how come we have two legs so we don't fall over. that will stump them

Answer 2

Well, I'd have to say that that's a hard task, because irreducible complexity has been SO massively debunked and disproven that it's long since become a joke among people who know a lot about evolution.



I will also point out that 'intelligent design' was a deliberate SCAM, done because the US Supreme Court ruled in the Edwards V. Aguillard case in 1987 that creationism was Unconstitutional to teach in public schools, so what the creationists did was retitle their delusion as 'ID'. The testimony and evidence in the Kitzmiller case in 2005 even showed a 'smoking gun' which proved that, when a creationist textbook from just before the Edwards decision called it creationism, and after that decision, every place where it said creationism, it had been changed to ID.



Irreducible complexity is so busted that one professor who still pushes it, because he has tenure, the University can't fire him, so they have a notice on their website that says that they do not agree or support Behe's views on that topic.

Answer 3

The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

Answer 4

Irreducible complexity does not work because any of the components may have alternate functions..



ID advocates failed to do their homework, gave examples that could easily be stepped around and were too closely allied with the YEC folks. Unless they prove creation of life is possible by intelligent design by creating life in the laboratory from non-life ID is pretty much dead.



A more intelligent approach is to start with areas of agreement.



Do you agree that the universe exists? Most would agree.



In the God Delusion Richard Dawkins the first point of his central argument asserts



"1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises."



Would you with Professor Dawkins assessment?



If they say no then Quote Gould from It's A wonderful Life, there are many high profile atheists who openly admit that the appearance of design exists in the universe.



Once one admits to the appearance of design in the universe - that's it they just lost the argument! The only explanation for the appears of design that holds up to scientific scrutiny is that the appearance of design is the product of design.



If they try to switch the subject to evolution shut them down immediately - evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of lie and applies to living things -- Until you can explain life through random natural events the there is nothing for evolution to do.



If they assert - prove God - then ask them, Do you now admit that the best explanation for the appearance of design is that it is the product of design -- they will always say no!



The question of who is not an issue until what has been confirmed.. with science you work from evidence and go where the evidence, talking about the designer assumes design which we have not agreed is the mostly likely explanation for the appearance of design



Basically dig your heals in and insist that the scientific method be strictly adhered to no new hypothesis until the hypothesis on the table is agreed as proven -- this is very important for the next part of the debate. If you adhere strictly to the scientific method and rules of empirical evidence (phenomena actually observed in nature, objective measurement, experimentally reproducible results) evolution fails every time. Once they agree the appearance of design is best explained by it being the product of design then move on.



Ask them: Who do you propose was the designer? They will almost always say they don't think there was a designer.. - You just got them to contradict themselves! Point Creation! End of round



Next round - openly admit I don't know who the designer was - lest leave that point as yet to be tested and move on, Life obviously does exist, if there was a designer it does not make sense that he would not design different kinds but that is just an assumption without knowing more about the designer so pending more evidence I yield the floor to you to present your proposed alternate explanation for the diversity of life observed in the biosphere.



You have just gotten past the primary psychological barrier to winning the debate - in almost every case where evolution and creation are debated - evolution is presented as the primary theory making the creationist view the alternate. Digging your heals in on the question of design, and conceding on the designer you have just succeeded in framing Evolution as the alternate explanation. If in the course of the debate the evolutionist side protests it reflects negatively on them!



Force them to give a scientific definition of evolution - By scientific I mean just that - conforming to the rules of science - clear, objective measurable. A common tactic used by evolutionists is use of the sliding definition - if they get caught they will throw out one of the many definitions of evolution that gives the wiggle room. If you challenge they will produce a source and you end up looking stupid. Forcing them to give a definition before you start, if the get jammed up and try to use a different definition than the one given at the start of the debate they are ones who look stupid and you win the point.



Evolution cannot stand on the facts - so it is debated using shady tactics. By recognizing those tactics and countering them before they can be used. You force the debate to stick to the facts and when you do so Evolution will always fail under the weight of unproven assumptions and anecdotal evidence being to great to be supported by the very limited objective evidence.

Answer 5

I consider that you simply might do a section exploring exclusive forms of couple dancing, atmosphere them off in contrast to one another. You ould appear on the noted disney cool animated film (i can´t don't forget the title, it featured the conductor Stokowski, and more than a few portions of classical tune illustrated with abstract cartoon portraits), and, similarly, use each abstract and representational varieties.

Answer 6

in·tel·li·gent de·sign

Noun:

The theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.





The only question you can ask is do you think there is a God.

Answer 7

ID is a very wide umbrella term for evidence that there is an Uncaused Cause

Some are Creationsit but others find no problem with evolutionary sciences

Answer 8

someone asked last week why god took the time and trouble to intelligently design 350,000 different species of beetles ... that's a good one, i think ...

Answer 9

Whip out a lighter and show them fire. They will instantly submit to your genius and make you their leader. Then you can ask them about that silly thing they call god.