Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

Mike wrote:

Heaven.

Judged:

1

1

1

Gonzo wrote:

I say no creationism in the public schools. If you want your kid to learn about creationism, send him or her to Sunday school or a private religious school. Stop trying to force your junk down our throats. If you truly believe than none of this should be an issue to you.
If it's not based on science, it has no place in the public school.

Judged:

1

1

1

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
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 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.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you have to disprove I.D.?

Leria wrote:

When are people going to realize that religions (all of them) are lies....... probably never, until we start telling people that they cannot indoctrinate their children with the lies of religion.

Judged:

1

1

1

EADGBE wrote:

<quoted text>
Intelligent design has no mechanism and no physical evidence. It has failed to provide a single example of a biological structure meeting the definition of irreducible complexity. ID is an argument of incredulity (i.e. Evolution can't account for "X") based on an argument of ignorance (i.e. discounting all known AND unknown natural mechanisms). ID has no positive evidence and as it's only mechanism is magic, it had its backside handed to it at the Kitzmiller case.
Cheers!

Open to Truth wrote:

First of all teaching intelligent design is not teaching religion. Second I believe the truth is more important than just what others believe and that’s why I’m open to the facts. The problem I have is too many people are closed minded and unwilling to except new information that could possibly help us to learn were we really came from. I am definitely open to both sides, and I realize that it takes faith whether I believe in flat out Evolution, creation, or something in between. The problem I have with Darwin’s theory is there are absolutely no in between species, we have humans and apes but no half ape half humans why? It’s also hard to believe an ultimate being created everything and everybody the way it is, nearly 7000 years ago. Anyway I want to go see a recent movie I heard that just came out called EXPELLED, hoping this will help shed a little light on the situation. I believe it’s important to look at all sides so I can make an informed decision. Try it you might like it, and you will definitely be a better learner.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

Tacky wrote:

"So let's see the evidence that supports your hypothesis, Crandall. Or how about an experiment to test it? No?"
This is the exact problem with either intelligent design or with evolution. The evidence is very questionable and there is no experiment to put the theory to the test. If evolution is as well documented as some believe, why are these supporters so opposed to any criticism of the theory? It is indeed a theory, not established fact.

Judged:

1

EADGBE wrote:

<quoted text>
What does ID have to be disproven?

Judged:

2

EADGBE wrote:

<quoted text>
By what mechanism does an "irreducibly complex" structure arise if not by "creation"?

Judged:

1

1

1

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
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.

Concerned wrote:

I guess some of the most brillant minds of all time (who believed in one all powerful creator) such as Leonardo Divinci and Benajamin Franklin were fools, eh? TRUE wisdom begins with the fear of God!!! Your comments are very concerning....You guys and gals are the scoffers the bible warns about in the last days. Evolution is considered a religion to me because its basic premises are based on assumptions which cannot be explained. Sounds a lot like faith in a man made religion to me....
Either get rid of both evolution and creationism in schools are teach them both. It is dangerous to promote one over the other. Let the children use their brains and think critically...I bet they will choose creation if they are allowed to think!!!

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
Specified complex Order of genetic information found in ALL biological diversity, Irreducible complexity found in biological systems, Fine tuning of planet earth and our solar system.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
You tell me.

Jacques wrote:

<quoted text>
I hear you. This entire debate is a joke. If it happens (ID in schools) well, kiss America goodbye and say hello to the Chinese, taking charge of modern engineering. I wonder how many doctors, engineers, scientists will be brought forth by this system?

harmonious wrote:

<quoted text>
that's a silly question, what does it even mean? does it mean any ID believer could never be a scientist, engineer, etc.?