Do you believe that if Intelligent Design is not science, then neither is Darwinism?

Question

As we have seen, science is a search for causes, and there are only two types of causes: intelligent and non-intelligent ( natural ).

The Darwinists' claim that Intelligent Design is not based on their " biased" definition of science. But that is arguing the circle! If your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, then you will never consider Intelligent Design science

The irony for the Darwinists is this: If Intelligent Design is not science, then neither is Darwinism. WHY? Because both Darwinists and Intelligent Desin scientists are trying to discover what happened in the past. Origin questions are forensic questions and thus require the use of forensic science principles.

For Darwinists to rule out Intelligent Design from the realm of science, in addition to ruling out themselves they would also have to rule out archaelogy, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigations, and the Search for Extra Terrestrial ( SETI ).

Answer 1

It's not science because it can't be experimentally demonstrated. End of story.



You know, I generally like what you have to say around here. But you seem to be in the dark about what science really is or how it operates.

Answer 2

For starters, I don't like your use of the term "Darwinist". It seems to suggest that Darwin's theory is a philosophy. It's not. It is just one theory.



Science, however, is something like a religion in the sense that there is a way you go about it and a way you don't. One of the most fundamental principles of science is that you don't approach it with any bias. The only way to truly do science is to approach it open to the possibility of accepting any conclusion you come to based on the evidence.



Anyone who looks at the evidence and is not biased *against* it sees evolution is real. The scientific community is overwhelmingly in consensus about this. However, we are still working toward understanding how it happens. Darwin's theory is actually a bit simplistic in terms of what we now know.



Intelligent design `scientists' are not really doing science because they are trying to prove a particular point. Science is never about proving something you want to be true. Even in cases where scientists obviously have a preference as to the outcome (such as tests of whether drugs are effective), we devise methods (like double-blind tests) to keep our preferences from influencing the results, so we can look at the data objectively and accept whatever we get.



Evolution doesn't imply what many who oppose it suggest it does. It doesn't imply that we have no purpose in life, for example. While a few people are loudly arguing against evolution--against reason--the rest of us have moved on to grappling with it, to asking what it means to us.

Answer 3

First of all, there really aren't any "Darwinists". Darwin started the ball rolling by proposing evolution as an explanation of speciation. The concept has been further refined, mountains of evidence gathered, and now the whole thing is called "Evolution".



Honestly, you can't refute the evidence for evolution. I have looked at a bunch of creation sites, and they distort the claims of evolution, put up sketchy arguments and generally bend the truth. I am a scientist. I work in a building with about 500 others. No one I have met yet believes in creation. A few believe in creation through evolution.



Many creationists tell you that scientists cannot agree that evolution is fact. That is simply not true. 150 years ago it was debated, and laughed at - but not now.

Answer 4

The definition of science was there a long time before "Intelligent Design" came about. Science is based on empirical proof; you cannot prove God. I can prove gravity exists, I drop a pencil and it falls to the ground. Why, no one knows for sure (theories do exist about it). Same for evolution, over time things do evolve, parents pass their genetic code to their children. Moths have been studied in England which were affected by industrial pollution. The color of these moths verified that indeed "survival of the fittest" was going on (black moths survived because the soot camouflaged them, making it harder for bird to see them, catch them, and eat them).



The origin of Intelligent Design is a revamped "Creation Science". This was ruled by a federal judge based on notes subpoenaed from two men involved in trying to get Intelligent Design books (remember "Of Pandas and People"?) in classrooms. There was also damning evidence stating that the sole reason for getting creation science and/or intelligent design in the classrooms was to get the Bible in the classroom, not to push it off as "science." Apparently the proponents of "Intelligent Design" don't actually think it is science, either.

Answer 5

Your definition of science is not the definition accepted by millions of scientists. It is a lie told to the uneducated to preserve ignorance. Science isn't about "causes" -- it is about mechanisms. Even if it were about causes, you have established "natural" causes as a feasible explanation, so you fail to disprove Darwinism.



Evolution is a sound science. It follows the scientific method of observation, making a hypothesis that explains the collected observations, making predictions based on the hypothesis, then testing the predictions. Evolution has passed numerous tests of its prediction. On the other hand, Intelligent Design makes no predictions.

Answer 6

Intelligent Design isn't even a theory.



Sorry, but science doesn't rule out intelligent being causing things. There just isn't any evidence suggesting that any have. There is lots of evidence suggesting that nature came about naturally.

Answer 7

Um, we're not using any "biased" definition of science. There is a clear definition of science and Intelligent Design does not fit. It's not provable, it's not testable, it has no evidence whatsoever, and it relies on a supernatural explanation, which is COMPLETELY outside of the realm of science.



Regardless of how you feel about evolution, ID is NOT science, no matter which way you slice it.

Answer 8

Your logic defies logic. Look, "Intelligent" Design is just plain stupid. Why do we even debate this? Those are my thoughts. As for SETI, as the old saying goes, the proof of intelligent life is that none of it has tried to contact us.

Answer 9

"Darwinism" doesn't exist. It's a word christians made up to make science sound like a religion.



Intelligent design doesn't "try to discover" what happened, it's magically assuming what happened. It has nothing to do with any kind of science.



Why do you keep posting these? You don't have what it takes to convince anybody else, and it doesn't sound like you're open to actually learning yourself.

Answer 10

What?? What is this "biased" definition of science you speak of?



I'd really like to know!



Look... REAL scientists had their chance in court and guess what? It has been determined that I.D. is NOT science. Read the Dover trial ruling and get your head out of your butt: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Answer 11

Intelligent design theory has been demonstrated to be wrong, evolution hasn't

Answer 12

The fallacy of your argument is that science does not automatically rule out creation. It is not accepted because it is not demonstrable.

Answer 13

No. I don't agree with the statement above. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. You should stop now. Your ignorance is showing.

Answer 14

Evolution has one very important element that intelligent design lacks: EVIDENCE

Answer 15

Yes, I believe that. You've obviously put a lot more thought into it than I have, however.

Answer 16

complete tosh! ID is not testable; evolution is.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XILO7UxPVBY

Answer 17

Darwin is the father of fascism, nazism and communism.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

Answer 18

I can't disagree one bit. 100% correct.

Answer 19

No, I'm not a fan of not making any sense, thanks.