Poll: Controversial Topics

[Zarkov]

Intelligent design isn't religious; it's actually scientific. They want to address (although rashly) the parts in a cell and the spots in time were there aren't any simpler or reducible forms of life.

Not religious though. Religious creationism is completely different than intelligent design.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

I agree more with Evolution and I actually think there's a different answer to irreducible forms of life, but intelligent design in and of itself shouldn't be discredited.

Now you know. So you don't have to bash intelligent design everytime you hear its name.
It is in fact scientific.

It is not. Its core tenet cannot be tested. Making it scientifically unverifiable.

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

What now?

How does one proof, or even show design was intelligent, or even design at all?

Not to mentioned adding a Intelligent Designer is just absurd if this Designer (god or not) isn't even provable to begin with.

Not to mention, as a biochemist and geneticist those examples you gave have nothing to do with intelligence what so ever.

You're mistaken; this is not my own work. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Intelligent design isn't religious; it's actually scientific. They want to address (although rashly) the parts in a cell and the spots in time were there aren't any simpler or reducible forms of life.

Not religious though. Religious creationism is completely different than intelligent design.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

I agree more with Evolution and I actually think there's a different answer to irreducible forms of life, but intelligent design in and of itself shouldn't be discredited.

Now you know. So you don't have to bash intelligent design everytime you hear its name.
It is in fact scientific.

It is not. Its core tenet cannot be tested. Making it scientifically unverifiable.

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

What now?

That doesn't address my point. How do you prove that something is designed? How do you observe it? Answer: you can't. And funny that you bring up irreducible complexity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
It has never been found in anything that ID proponents claim have something that is irreducibly complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
ID is just creation repackaged to try to challenge evolution.

Sorry, I can't argue with stupid.

You know, I can't believe that Richard Dawkins has really brainwashed us this well; to the point to where we can't examine something that may have a better explanation.

Spoiler: Well, this sure argues against that

Yes. 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.

We have to look at all possible theories. If we didn't, then science would cease to be science and would then become a religion of sorts. There's nothing wrong with considering intelligent design; it is scientific.

And you act as though evolution is this holy grail(no irony intended) of theories... and when in fact evolution is probably wrong in some aspects. Evolution doesn't account for everything, and it doesn't fit perfectly as a model. I guarantee here in the few hundred years well have another theory that's similar to evolution but is something different in and of its own. It's been like this throughout history, and to deny it would be ignorance.

Hell, I'd be happy if evolution was "disproven" or whatever as an ultimate model for how life is. Whatever proceeds it must be even better.

And just so you know we have the same background: (I would suppose) I'm atheist, and I also majorly agree with evolution at this point and time; it's simply the best way to describe the evolution of life as of yet. The only reason I'm defending intelligent design is because most people are completely ignorant of what it actually is, and refuse to even acknowledge its existence. Get off your high horse, you know nothing more than the rest of us.

At least they're trying to challenge the status quo.

The scientific community regards it as pseudoscience. I posted links that refuted its "best" argument, irreducible complexity. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it is science.

 

[Ranorak]

Intelligent design isn't religious; it's actually scientific. They want to address (although rashly) the parts in a cell and the spots in time were there aren't any simpler or reducible forms of life.

Not religious though. Religious creationism is completely different than intelligent design.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

I agree more with Evolution and I actually think there's a different answer to irreducible forms of life, but intelligent design in and of itself shouldn't be discredited.

Now you know. So you don't have to bash intelligent design everytime you hear its name.
It is in fact scientific.

It's not, at all.
saying God guided Evolution is all nice and dandy.
But if you want it to hold up some scientific theory, you gotta show some proof.

There is none.
In fact, There are some steps in evolution that would discredit intelligent design.
Evolution doesn't go for the BEST option. it goes for survivable.

A Truly intelligent designer would have had another look at the Recurrent laryngeal nerve.
Why would a designer run that nerve from the neck do the thorax, and back up to the neck?

Intelligent design doesn't explain; it only accounts for such things.

Such as irreducible forms of life that can't be covered by Evolution.

I'm all for evolution, but I guarantee that evolution isn't the last theory we're going to come up with and intelligent design only speeds up this process. They don't ever necessarily say that it's "GOD" who designed it, but they say that some type of way must have been used other than pure chance on some of the irreducible parts of nature.

Seriously... know what you're bashing before you bash it, lest you look like an idiot in doing so. Just because Richard Dawkins' bashed it doesn't mean it should be bashed. Richard's a great guy, but he doesn't know everything.

I'm an atheist and I agree with evolution. Intelligent design doesn't even discredit evolution; it only points out the areas where the theory of evolution falls apart; and mind you, they don't input their own explanation other than "there must be something else" or "it was designed".

Spoiler: Take a look

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

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.

I'm sorry, but:

Seriously... know what you're bashing before you bash it, lest you look like an idiot in doing so.

As a geneticist and biochemist I know exactly what I'm basing.

What you call irreducible forms of life that can't be formed by evolution, aren't really all that hard to form by evolution at all.

And who ever mentioned Richard Dawkins, I'm pretty capable of doing my own research and form my own opinions, thank you.
The truth is, Evolution has been observed, and proven to be a natural occurring process.
Natural selection drives Evolution, not a designer in the sky.

 

[Henkie36]

This is ofcourse, kinda lobsided, because as a recent poll confirmed, most people on the Escapist aren't religious. And I know that ID isn't stictly spoken religion connected, but that's only because that's convenient for the Republicans. ''We can't teach christianity in the biology class, because that's promoting a specific religion. So we just call God unspecified.''. Not calling ID religious is just a useful loophole, specifically created for that purpose.

 

[General BrEeZy]

why can't they coincide? i definitely believe that both are right to some degree. but it would take far too long for me to try to state any of it, and i have to go somewhere for the day very soon...
.......
quick version: i believe in the Creation, and Evolution, just not that we came from primates...isn't their a gap in the fossil record that just isn't getting filled in when it comes to homo-sapiens? thats what i've heard...so it kinda makes sense for God to give rise to these things, then leave that gap, create Adam and Eve several thousand years ago, then humanity progressed to the present day...i suppose we'll have to wait for Armageddon or whatever for God to tell us how all this'll go down...and you know, if were wrong, then too bad. but human opinion wont kill the truth...

whatever the truth, live life well lol.

 

[Ranorak]

You're mistaken; this is not my own work. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

How is this link going to proof anything, they don't post any actual scientific reports, peer reviewed documents, experiements.

They just ramble about how there has to be a designer.
No there doesn't have to be a designer.

In fact, if there was, he did a piss poor job.

 

[Ranorak]

isn't their a gap in the fossil record that just isn't getting filled in when it comes to homo-sapiens?

Nope, in fact, the fossil record is so full of "missing links" that we are having a hard time pointing out when the skulls stop being "ancestor ape" and become human.

 

[Custard_Angel]

Intelligently influenced evolution.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Zarkov]

Intelligent design isn't religious; it's actually scientific. They want to address (although rashly) the parts in a cell and the spots in time were there aren't any simpler or reducible forms of life.

Not religious though. Religious creationism is completely different than intelligent design.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

I agree more with Evolution and I actually think there's a different answer to irreducible forms of life, but intelligent design in and of itself shouldn't be discredited.

Now you know. So you don't have to bash intelligent design everytime you hear its name.
It is in fact scientific.

It's not, at all.
saying God guided Evolution is all nice and dandy.
But if you want it to hold up some scientific theory, you gotta show some proof.

There is none.
In fact, There are some steps in evolution that would discredit intelligent design.
Evolution doesn't go for the BEST option. it goes for survivable.

A Truly intelligent designer would have had another look at the Recurrent laryngeal nerve.
Why would a designer run that nerve from the neck do the thorax, and back up to the neck?

Intelligent design doesn't explain; it only accounts for such things.

Such as irreducible forms of life that can't be covered by Evolution.

I'm all for evolution, but I guarantee that evolution isn't the last theory we're going to come up with and intelligent design only speeds up this process. They don't ever necessarily say that it's "GOD" who designed it, but they say that some type of way must have been used other than pure chance on some of the irreducible parts of nature.

Seriously... know what you're bashing before you bash it, lest you look like an idiot in doing so. Just because Richard Dawkins' bashed it doesn't mean it should be bashed. Richard's a great guy, but he doesn't know everything.

I'm an atheist and I agree with evolution. Intelligent design doesn't even discredit evolution; it only points out the areas where the theory of evolution falls apart; and mind you, they don't input their own explanation other than "there must be something else" or "it was designed".

Spoiler: Take a look

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

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.

I'm sorry, but:

Seriously... know what you're bashing before you bash it, lest you look like an idiot in doing so.

As a geneticist and biochemist I know exactly what I'm basing.

What you call irreducible forms of life that can't be formed by evolution, aren't really all that hard to form by evolution at all.

And who ever mentioned Richard Dawkins, I'm pretty capable of doing my own research and form my own opinions, thank you.
The truth is, Evolution has been observed, and proven to be a natural occurring process.
Natural selection drives Evolution, not a designer in the sky.

Oh, the internet, where you can be anyone and everyone at the whim of a keystroke.

Either way, I've had professors who were biochemists and geneticists and have agreed with me.

Your dear evolution isn't the end of roads; to think so would be ignorance. Although, I'll have to give you that you're the only one who's responded to my "wacky claims" that I feel it'd be worth replying to.

 

[Zarkov]

Intelligent design isn't religious; it's actually scientific. They want to address (although rashly) the parts in a cell and the spots in time were there aren't any simpler or reducible forms of life.

Not religious though. Religious creationism is completely different than intelligent design.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

I agree more with Evolution and I actually think there's a different answer to irreducible forms of life, but intelligent design in and of itself shouldn't be discredited.

Now you know. So you don't have to bash intelligent design everytime you hear its name.
It is in fact scientific.

It is not. Its core tenet cannot be tested. Making it scientifically unverifiable.

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

What now?

That doesn't address my point. How do you prove that something is designed? How do you observe it? Answer: you can't. And funny that you bring up irreducible complexity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
It has never been found in anything that ID proponents claim have something that is irreducibly complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
ID is just creation repackaged to try to challenge evolution.

Sorry, I can't argue with stupid.

You know, I can't believe that Richard Dawkins has really brainwashed us this well; to the point to where we can't examine something that may have a better explanation.

Spoiler: Well, this sure argues against that

Yes. 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.

We have to look at all possible theories. If we didn't, then science would cease to be science and would then become a religion of sorts. There's nothing wrong with considering intelligent design; it is scientific.

And you act as though evolution is this holy grail(no irony intended) of theories... and when in fact evolution is probably wrong in some aspects. Evolution doesn't account for everything, and it doesn't fit perfectly as a model. I guarantee here in the few hundred years well have another theory that's similar to evolution but is something different in and of its own. It's been like this throughout history, and to deny it would be ignorance.

Hell, I'd be happy if evolution was "disproven" or whatever as an ultimate model for how life is. Whatever proceeds it must be even better.

And just so you know we have the same background: (I would suppose) I'm atheist, and I also majorly agree with evolution at this point and time; it's simply the best way to describe the evolution of life as of yet. The only reason I'm defending intelligent design is because most people are completely ignorant of what it actually is, and refuse to even acknowledge its existence. Get off your high horse, you know nothing more than the rest of us.

At least they're trying to challenge the status quo.

The scientific community regards it as pseudoscience. I posted links that refuted its "best" argument, irreducible complexity. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it is science.

You think that holds water?

hundreds upon hundreds of theories were held back as nonesense to the "scientific community" but actually turned out to be better explanations than the status quo.

 

[Ranorak]

Intelligent design isn't religious; it's actually scientific. They want to address (although rashly) the parts in a cell and the spots in time were there aren't any simpler or reducible forms of life.

Not religious though. Religious creationism is completely different than intelligent design.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

I agree more with Evolution and I actually think there's a different answer to irreducible forms of life, but intelligent design in and of itself shouldn't be discredited.

Now you know. So you don't have to bash intelligent design everytime you hear its name.
It is in fact scientific.

It's not, at all.
saying God guided Evolution is all nice and dandy.
But if you want it to hold up some scientific theory, you gotta show some proof.

There is none.
In fact, There are some steps in evolution that would discredit intelligent design.
Evolution doesn't go for the BEST option. it goes for survivable.

A Truly intelligent designer would have had another look at the Recurrent laryngeal nerve.
Why would a designer run that nerve from the neck do the thorax, and back up to the neck?

Intelligent design doesn't explain; it only accounts for such things.

Such as irreducible forms of life that can't be covered by Evolution.

I'm all for evolution, but I guarantee that evolution isn't the last theory we're going to come up with and intelligent design only speeds up this process. They don't ever necessarily say that it's "GOD" who designed it, but they say that some type of way must have been used other than pure chance on some of the irreducible parts of nature.

Seriously... know what you're bashing before you bash it, lest you look like an idiot in doing so. Just because Richard Dawkins' bashed it doesn't mean it should be bashed. Richard's a great guy, but he doesn't know everything.

I'm an atheist and I agree with evolution. Intelligent design doesn't even discredit evolution; it only points out the areas where the theory of evolution falls apart; and mind you, they don't input their own explanation other than "there must be something else" or "it was designed".

Spoiler: Take a look

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

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.

I'm sorry, but:

Seriously... know what you're bashing before you bash it, lest you look like an idiot in doing so.

As a geneticist and biochemist I know exactly what I'm basing.

What you call irreducible forms of life that can't be formed by evolution, aren't really all that hard to form by evolution at all.

And who ever mentioned Richard Dawkins, I'm pretty capable of doing my own research and form my own opinions, thank you.
The truth is, Evolution has been observed, and proven to be a natural occurring process.
Natural selection drives Evolution, not a designer in the sky.

Oh, the internet, where you can be anyone and everyone at the whim of a keystroke.

Either way, I've had professors who were biochemists and geneticists and have agreed with me.

Your dear evolution isn't the end of roads; to think so would be ignorance. Although, I'll have to give you that you're the only one who's responded to my "wacky claims" that I feel it'd be worth replying to.

I'm honestly curious how they would go about and proof such a hypothesis.
Because not only is that really hard, there are some clear "features" in organisms, like the Recurrent laryngeal nerve that would disproof the whole idea.

I mean, if they are right, great, another step closer to truth. But all the signs are showing that it's a natural occurring process, not a guided one.

 

[Kinokohatake]

Why the fuck is there yet another god damn thread about this? Why not just comment on one of the other 400 threads about E vs ID? And your opening post pretty much says "Why do people debate this? Debate it".

 

[Ranorak]

Intelligently influenced evolution.

Prove me wrong.

Recurrent laryngeal nerve

 

[MortarTeam]

I only have to say this about having people around defending ID:

 

[Kair]

The answer is unintelligent design. Everything points to it.
His almighty got really drunk, then created a mountain, a dwarf and some trees.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Intelligent design isn't religious; it's actually scientific. They want to address (although rashly) the parts in a cell and the spots in time were there aren't any simpler or reducible forms of life.

Not religious though. Religious creationism is completely different than intelligent design.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

I agree more with Evolution and I actually think there's a different answer to irreducible forms of life, but intelligent design in and of itself shouldn't be discredited.

Now you know. So you don't have to bash intelligent design everytime you hear its name.
It is in fact scientific.

It is not. Its core tenet cannot be tested. Making it scientifically unverifiable.

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

What now?

That doesn't address my point. How do you prove that something is designed? How do you observe it? Answer: you can't. And funny that you bring up irreducible complexity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
It has never been found in anything that ID proponents claim have something that is irreducibly complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
ID is just creation repackaged to try to challenge evolution.

Sorry, I can't argue with stupid.

You know, I can't believe that Richard Dawkins has really brainwashed us this well; to the point to where we can't examine something that may have a better explanation.

Spoiler: Well, this sure argues against that

Yes. 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.

We have to look at all possible theories. If we didn't, then science would cease to be science and would then become a religion of sorts. There's nothing wrong with considering intelligent design; it is scientific.

And you act as though evolution is this holy grail(no irony intended) of theories... and when in fact evolution is probably wrong in some aspects. Evolution doesn't account for everything, and it doesn't fit perfectly as a model. I guarantee here in the few hundred years well have another theory that's similar to evolution but is something different in and of its own. It's been like this throughout history, and to deny it would be ignorance.

Hell, I'd be happy if evolution was "disproven" or whatever as an ultimate model for how life is. Whatever proceeds it must be even better.

And just so you know we have the same background: (I would suppose) I'm atheist, and I also majorly agree with evolution at this point and time; it's simply the best way to describe the evolution of life as of yet. The only reason I'm defending intelligent design is because most people are completely ignorant of what it actually is, and refuse to even acknowledge its existence. Get off your high horse, you know nothing more than the rest of us.

At least they're trying to challenge the status quo.

The scientific community regards it as pseudoscience. I posted links that refuted its "best" argument, irreducible complexity. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it is science.

You think that holds water?

hundreds upon hundreds of theories were held back as nonesense to the "scientific community" but actually turned out to be better explanations than the status quo.

What do the majority of scientists in the field know, anyway? Clearly, you know better. I'll compromise: give me one example of irreducible complexity and I'll stop quoting you.

 

[Velvo]

i agree,as a Muslim i believe god created all living beings and gave them the means to survive(evolution is one of them).but to say that mankind evolved from apes thats absurd, theres no proof of that,now what i dont get is atheists,i mean how do they think the universe started,sure thers the big bang theory,and its dumb as hell,there must be something that caused the bang,or something that made the thing that caused the bang,albert einstein once said that this universe cannot be a Coincidence,and what created it cant be fathomed by the human mind.
in Islam we believe that god is in no place(yes no,place what i mean by that is god cant be in a place god created because god existed before creation),and god has no shape,god is simply beyond our comprehension

I must say that I can't disagree with the supposition that what existed before the universe may indeed be a thing much like God, but this idea of yours that man did not descend from apes is simply misguided.

The lineage of Australopithecus is well documented and leads to Homo erectus and from that to both Neanderthal and ancient Homo sapiens. In fact, analysis of genetic lineage proves that we are closely related to apes, most closely chimpanzees. If you would study the science you would see that in order to be correct about this you must shift your perspective. I mean, we even look so much like them! Watch a group of chimps for a while and see if you don't see anything familiar.

As far as the Big Bang goes, the evidence for that is pretty solid, considering all the things that astronomers know about the universe from observing it in great detail and constructing simulations based on the currently known laws of physics. The thing about talking about "before the big bang" is that time did not exist before space did (spacetime is one entity), and the supposition is that the big bang was the origination of both time and space exploding outward from one point. So, talking about "before" the big bang causes temporal problems... unless you suppose that there is a "multiverse" and that the big bang merely expanded another universe into existence.

And no, I do not believe that anything is inherently beyond human comprehension. We may require tools to understand it, as we have used math to understand the complex world of numbers, or science to understand the complex way of the world, or psychology to understand the complex world of the psyche... but in some way, we are able to comprehend the unthinkably vast. Perhaps not alone, but together, humanity can be something amazing.

 

[Bubba Doongai]

But to say that mankind evolved from apes, that's absurd. There's no proof of that. Now what i dont get is atheists, I mean how do they think the universe started? Sure there's the big bang theory, and it's dumb as hell, there must be something that caused the bang, or something that made the thing that caused the bang. Albert Einstein once said that this universe cannot be a coincidence, and what created it can't be fathomed by the human mind.

Thought I'd just say that not all atheists agree with the big bang theory. The only thing that atheists all agree on is the lack of a god. I'm an atheist/agnostic and I don't agree with the big bang theory, most likely because I don't have a firm understanding of it. Instead I just admit that I don't know how the universe started. Also, just because someone with a high IQ held a belief doesn't necessarily make it right.

OT: In an ideal world where everyone was intelligent this wouldn't matter. Everyone could have all the facts, understand them, and then choose to believe in what they want. Unfortunately, in the real world, some people are easily led and rather than decide for themselves they allow their opinions to be swayed entirely by those of other people.

Also, I agree with some of the earlier posters. This doesn't have to be a ____ vs ____ issue. You could believe that a God created the universe and that evolution then took effect, possibly through the influence of that God.

 

[Jonluw]

Noone outside of the US is arguing against evolution; perhaps except from some very tiny religious groups.
It's an observable scientific fact. Deal with it.
Natural selection's a theory, and even then it's massively supported.

Does the concept of evolution conflict with your worldview? Then your worldview is wrong.
That is, unless you're going to declare logic and reason invalid. In which case, um... I guess that's fine? I mean, so long as you accept that noone will ever bother to listen to your reasoning or opinions ever again.

Tell you what: I'll accept you challenging the theory of natural selection if you have a degree in a relevant subject. Like biology. And if you can prove that you're not nuts to boot.

Holding the view that the massive scientific consensus is wrong without being some sort of super-genius is simply irrational beyond belief.
But then again, religion isn't exactly the most rational thing out there.

 

[ducis]

I'd like to bring up that just because something is proven according to the scientific method does not mean its is absolutely proven (truth),and does not mean that it should be universally perceived as truth. google epistemology