Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[minkymurph]

I

On those occasions when a scientific transitional finding (all of science is transitional, as we hear here all the time) contradicts Church dogma (for example, monogenism), then I reject the science on the basis that they just haven’t figured out the truth yet.

I’m not a 6 day creationist. I’m not somebody who takes all of the bible literally (I doubt that there actually is anyone like that - I don’t know of anyone who believes that Jesus is literally a vine, for example). So really what is being talked about here is exactly which parts of the bible should be taken literally. I’m open in both directions to this, but as I said above, if it contradicts the long held dogma of the Church, then I’m going with the dogma, not the transitional scientific explanation.

If scientific evidence runs contrary to Church dogma, that is one thing. If it runs contrary to interpretations of one passage of scripture that even bible scholars question, that is another.

OK, I understand your argument - polygenism may contradict our understanding of the fall and should be rejected. Maybe it should. However, it may not and should be fully investigated in conjunction with our faith before outright rejection. How we approach it is, is this compatible with our faith or not? If after thorough investigation is it not, we can not only reject it but give a comprehensive answer as to why, which will be better than, ‘it doesn’t fit a literal interpretation of Genesis.’

 

[edwest2]

From Humani Generis (1950)

“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[vz71]

You asked Rossum if he was comfortable with his assumptions. I’m not Rossum, but if I were I would ask you what that would have to do with truth? Does the truth have to be comfortable? That may explain ID which predicts nothing.
However the supporters of it are quite predictable.

ID does make predictions.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with them.
Here:
uncommondescent.com/faq/#nopred

Of course, there are plenty of others as well.

Now, I am asking about these assumptions Rossum continues to make because Rossum continues to make them while at the same time trying to tout some kind of scientific method that assumptions do not easily fit within.

In the world Rossum describes, assumptions must have some kind of scientific evidencial support. Yet there are assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions with no scientific evidence whatsoever.

It is unscientific, and hypocritical.

 

[vz71]

I have not heard of the “science of ID.” Can you show me where I can find this science?

Perhaps I should choose words more carefully.
To fend against the willful misunderstanding at least.

You mean that you are unfamiliar with math? Calculus? Physics? Economics? Physical Science? For that matter all the sciences…

Each of these involve a search for the pattern and using that answer to tell us more.

 

[rossum]

Do you believe life contingent upon this cell wall?

No, but I have not seen any life without some sort of cell membrane (membrane rather than wall, my error.)

What evidence do we have to support this assumption?

Observation of the real world.

So you are comfortable with the assumptions?

Yes. Have you observed any life without a lipid bilayer cell membrane?

Progress to where? How do you know? You do not even know where the target is.

I can observe existing simple life. It has a lipid bilayer membrane, it has RNA. Modern version don’t generally have ribozymes, but they have alternative chemicals which perform the same functions. What observations do you have from the ID labs? Or do the ID labs spend all their time putting out easy questions for me to answer?

And you believe the cell wall is the life behind it?

No. Where did I say that? A cell membrane is one of the components of a living cell. A component that abiogenesis can assemble and that ID, so far, cannot.

OK, chemistry is where the life is?
What evidence do we have to support this?

I can look at the chemical reactions inside living cells. Are you really so completely ignorant of biology that you have to ask such basic questions that show an utter lack of the required background knowledge? Or maybe you need to get a better set of questions from those ID question-producing labs you seem to be using. There is a great deal of chemistry going on inside cells. I suggest that you read up about it.

So you are uncomfortable with that assumption

Please read what I said. I am uncomfortable about setting a date. I am not uncomfortable about any of my assumptions. They are all reasonably well supported by the evidence.

Which gap?

Any gaps in our knowledge. Science works to fill gaps. There used to be a gap called “how did pyrimidines originate?” That gap has now been filled. Read the scientific literature and see the areas where people are working. Those are where the gaps are.

So you wish people to subscribe to your idea because you can say nothing good about the alternatives?

No. I subscribe to abiogenesis because ID has less to show. Abiogenesis can produce a lipid bilayer cell membrane; ID cannot. Abiogenesis can provide purines and pyrimidines; ID cannot. Abiogenesis can provide ribozymes; ID cannot. Abiogenesis can; ID cannot. Until that situation changes I will stick with abiogenesis.

I would think a good theory could run on its own merits.

Abiogensis is not yet a theory; it is a group of hypotheses working towards a theory. Even in its incomplete state it currently has more merits than ID. If the ID labs can show their designer making a living cell from raw chemicals in a test tube then I am prepared to change my mind.

As to the science of ID, that has been answered many times.

Reference please.

The search for patterns and order has been a science for quite some time.

I am not talking about the search for patterns, archaeology has been doing that for some time. I am talking about abiogenesis and the complete lack of any apparent ID work in that area.

Where is the ID work on the origin of life?

rossum

 

[Neildown]

I would argue they have not. Creatures evolve all the time. If you look at the physical appearance and biological make up of many creatures over years and centuries, there are vast differences. Do we know there were giraffe’s in Garden of Eden and physically, the looked exactly as they do today? Before anyone says, ‘how do you know there weren’t giraffes in the Garden of Eden that looked exactly as giraffes look today,’ thereis any amount of evidence of physical evolution, and it’s up to them to prove that there was an original giraffe who’s physical appearance has not changed in support of that. ID’ers would argue new species do not evolve. Yes they do and again, there is evidence of that. If ID’ers are going to argue there was a ‘blueprint’ of every species of flora and fauna that exists today in the Garden of Eden, again it is up to them to provide evidence to support the argument. ID’ers argue this is not evidence of evolution. What is it evidence of? In addition, refuting a biological mechanism of evolution exists does not prove we were created by God. Neither does a literal interpretation of Genesis; particularly not to someone who not only does not believe the bible is the Word of God, but God does not exist which is the challenge today. I see existence of God as a separate argument from evolution. Unfortunately, atheists and theist alike seem to be unable to make that distinction.

Let me clarify myself - “I haven’t seen any species that are evolving into different species” I do not in any way reject the fact that animals evolve according to their surroundings and habitats. [Again] what I do have a problem with is the idea that species can separate into different species [ie. macroevolution]. If we had any true, hands-down, unobjectionable scientific proof, nonetheless proof in itself, that species evolved into other species, the theory of evolution would not be such a hot topic of debate amongst Christian circles like ourselves - thus I must grind against your statement of confidence. Also, I’m not really sure where you’re going with ID, as I’m not even a follower, and it wasn’t even mentioned in my post .

The birth of every child is a miracle in the physical sense as much as in the spiritual. Look at the physical changes we go through before we emerge into the world.In the early days of pregnancy, we look nothing like a human. At one time we all had a tail and gills. If this is not evidence for physical evolution, why not? This argument is very relevant in current debates about abortion with regard to evolution and person-hood.

I agree with that of course - life is precious in all its forms. That goes right back into a former argument though. The fact that an unborn child develops into an adult is of no more relevance to evolution than a square-dance on the moon. As I said before, human children are conceived because they have DNA that tells them to be conceived as human children - species do not have DNA which tells them to evolve into different species. That very statement is being disputed right here, so I question the reason you say that as a fact. It is not evidence for macroevolution because it has no relevance to the argument whatsoever as far as I see. Unborn babies are not fish.

In digression - it also has no relevance to debates about abortion either, if it is for supporting abortion anyway. Stealing a rough line from Kung Fu Panda - “When you plant a peach seed, you may want an apple or an orange, but it will grow into a peach tree.” A baby may start as a “piece of tissue”, and one may suppose it will be nothing more, but it will be a human being nonetheless if you allow it to live. Thus, whether you can rightly call it a piece of tissue or a 7-months-in baby, abortion is the destruction of human life, and it is no more justifiable than the Holocaust of the 1940s.

ID’er’s may argue ‘Adam was not formed by God in this way.’ How do you know he wasn’t? Are we back to the literal interpretation of Genesis? ‘It doesn’t mean we share a common ancestor.’ Why not? Who’s to say God didn’t model various life forms in a variety of ways from one physical form? ‘Apes didn’t become humans.’ It’s a common misconception that’s what sharing a common ancestor means. ‘Did God know what Adam would look like?’ I think it’s fair to say he did, if of course you believe in God which the atheist doesn’t, so he/she doesn’t care. If God knew what Adam would look like, does this prove He created Adam in an instant, or humans do not share a common ancestor with other life forms? No, it doesn’t. 'But Genesis says …Ah, we’re back to the literal interpretation of Genesis again. In that case, the church is wrong to say we were created from dust. Only men were. Women were created from a rib. ‘But the word ‘man’ is used in relation to both men and women.’ Nope, you can’t have it both ways. If it’s a literal account to explain how God physically created us, it’s a literal account.

K, I’d respond to this more directly, but again you are talking about ID, which is of no relevance to me, as I don’t believe in that or your version of evolution. Please re-explain/argue this in terms toward a creationist if you want to continue here, because it is like you are mixing creationism and ID into one, which is not the argument we’re having here as far as I know.

 

[samiam1611]

It means a lot more to me if a teaching comes from the Church, especially when it’s actual dogma.

Why does it mean a lot more to you if a teaching comes from the Church?

When the Church states something as official teaching, even if I don’t understand it, I must still accept it and try to find out why I am having problems in comprehension. That is my duty as a Catholic.

Would you consider that a good thing? It sounds more like brainwashing to me.

Scientific findings fly out the window in cases like these (actually though, there is scientific evidence that we *are *all the offspring of at least one human female (I don’t have a reference; I learned this in college a long, long time ago).

She’s called “Mitochondrial Eve.”

Science can’t prove anything.

You’re basically right, science humbly considers new evidence even if it contradicts the current conclusion bc in its quest for the truth, it would be silly to ignore valid evidence.

Church dogma is absolute proof.

What is your basis for this? Please, I beg of you, say something other than Jesus gave the Church this authority or something like that. Does tradition and unchanging teachings ACTUALLY mean what they say is correct? Think about that. What precisely makes you think that because the Church will not admit to being wrong, that means She never is wrong? (generally speaking.)

Hopefully science will continue to progress and our understand of Truth will become clarified.

Yes I’m sure it will progress. Science’s main goal is to get as near to certainty that it can. Hopefully the Church will recognize that unchanging teachings does not equal accuracy.

 

[vz71]

I can look at the chemical reactions inside living cells. Are you really so completely ignorant of biology that you have to ask such basic questions that show an utter lack of the required background knowledge?.. There is a great deal of chemistry going on inside cells. I suggest that you read up about it.

I have.
There is a great deal going on there.
Some have even used the term irreducibly complex to describe some of it.
I really couldn’t say one way or the other, but it seems to me that you are terribly chemical centered and have not given any thought whatsoever to the idea that life may not lie there at all.
What scientific basis do you have for the assumption that the chemistry will somehow lead to life?

I am not uncomfortable about any of my assumptions. They are all reasonably well supported by the evidence.

Great…
What is the scientific basis for claiming the current research in the field is actually leading anywhere?
What is your scientific basis for claiming progress at all toward creating life?
Until the deed is done, we really do not know what exactly it will take.
So what is the scientific basis for claiming such knowledge in the abscence of a finished project that we have created.
Earlier in the thread you made the claim that all we needed was a small bit of self replication and then the ‘evolution would start’…If I misunderstood your meaning, please let me know.
What is the scientific basis for believing evolution could simply start instead of constant tinkering needed on our end to keep it going?

I subscribe to abiogenesis because ID has less to show. Abiogenesis can produce a lipid bilayer cell membrane; ID cannot. Abiogenesis can provide purines and pyrimidines; ID cannot. Abiogenesis can provide ribozymes; ID cannot. Abiogenesis can; ID cannot. Until that situation changes I will stick with abiogenesis.

Neither has produced life.
From where I sit, one theory is less arrogant then the other.
In one, we readily see the design and learn from it until we can do it ourselves.
In the other we claim to know how it works but cannot duplicate the results.

 

[tonyrey]

I specified that there are only two elements that are the basis of all life: carbon and hydrogen.

Your source is incorrect. I am not aware of any lifeform that is made solely of carbon and hydrogen. You need to add nitrogen and oxygen to the mix at the very least.
You are still overlooking the word “basis”.To be even more precise, carbon is the element that is generally considered as** the** basis of life. Organic chemistry is often defined as the chemical processes of carbon and its compounds, regardless of whether they are living organisms. Carbon is absolutely unique in its ability to build large and complex molecules which are essential for life. No other element could be the basis of life - although silicon has been suggested.

If there is so much carbon and hydrogen readily available in vast quantities why isn’t life present in every nook and cranny of the universe?

How do you propose to use the millions of tons of hydrogen present in the Sun at temperatures of thousands of degrees Centigrade to make life? Your point was that there is so much carbon and hydrogen in the universe that the occurrence of life is not so improbable after all.

An excess or insufficiency of either element would preclude the emergence of living organisms.

Why? I can see that a complete absence of one element would prevent life forming. If all required elements are present then, assuming life begins, they will be used up until the available supplies of the least common element are exhausted. At that point the remaining amounts of the other elements will just be lying around.So you don’t believe the accumulation of carbon on this planet will be disastrous for life?

Darwin’s book is called “On the Origin of Species”. It is not called “On the Origin of the Elements and of Species”. Chemistry does not explain the origin of the elements, neither does evolution.

The topic is Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution - which clearly regards evolution as an alternative explanation to Creationism and Intelligent Design. Evolution is therefore regarded as a** metaphysical explanation** of life - which must include abiogenesis.

The issue is life on this planet where it has emerged - and, according to you, it was inevitable.

Where have I said it was inevitable? It happened, obviously we are here. I do not think it was inevitable.The fact that you reject the fine tuning argument implies that you must believe life has emerged as the result of physical necessity. There is no other possible explanation.

Thank you for confirming my statement that you attribute necessity to the process of evolution!

Given the required causes then the effect is inevitable. The causes of evolution do not obtain everywhere. They are not present on the moon for example, hence there is no evolution on the moon. The causes are present on Earth so there is evolution on the Earth. Cause and effect.Do you the laws of nature could be different?

To be precise you accept physical causality which is equivalent to accepting physical necessity because you regard it as the sole explanation of life.

Life is not solely material.
Then why did you make the following statement?

There is more than “one” combination of

**chemicals that makes **life, even simple life.

 

[razredge]

Some posters here have wrote about God as an artist rather than an engineer. Did Michael Angelo know exactly what his statue of David would look like? Or did he kind of go with the flow along the way? Now, if as God you could empower you’re own creation to physically form itself, then it is not the case that you don’t know what you are doing, have no purpose and no idea how things will turn out, but rather; let your creation ‘enjoy’ the abilities you have given it?

Yes, this was my point - God imbued the universe with a certain dynamism that allowed it to participate in creation, this is similar to how he gives us free will to determine our lives and doesn’t just predestine us like pawns in some divine plan (unless you’re a Calvinist and believe that)

Fr George Coyne, former head of the Vatican Observatory puts it very nicely:

“God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God,” Father Coyne says, adding that this view of creation is not new but can be found in early Christian writings, including from those of St. Augustine.

“Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”

He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.”

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

His full talk is here and is an excellent read for those interested in evolution and faith:
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504&page=1

Of course God could predict that evolution would result in humans as one of the outcomes.

God can do even better than that, he can predict exactly which outcome would occur.

This depends on what view of omniscience you take - does God know things that are unknowable? Like the contents of a book that was never written?

I think this was heavily discussed on other threads. It has to do with monogenism (a single pair of original parents i.e. Adam / Eve), or polygenism (more than one set of original parents).

This has actually been sorted out quite nicely (at least to me) thanks to a model for Original Sin formulated by Pope Benedict himself.
Was discussed here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=560342&page=16

 

[minkymurph]

“I haven’t seen any species that are evolving into different species” If we had any true, hands-down, unobjectionable scientific proof, nonetheless proof in itself, that species evolved into other species, the theory of evolution would not be such a hot topic of debate amongst Christian circles like ourselves - thus I must grind against your statement of confidence. Also, I’m not really sure where you’re going with ID, as I’m not even a follower, and it wasn’t even mentioned in my post .

I know you don’t claim to be a follower of ID. Some of the arguments you are using are ID arguments against evolution. that’s were I’m going with ID. In addition, this thread is a debate about ID/Creation/Evolution which is why I mention it.

My point was, were all the species of flora and fauna we see in the world today present in the Garden of Eden? If the answer is ‘no,’ then new species did evolve over time. Of course if someone wants to propose another line of thought as to why we have species of flora and fauna today that were not in the Garden of Eden, I am willing to consider it.

While we may not see a new species evolve right in front of our eyes or in our lifetime, the only evidence new species did not evolve from the time of creation until now is a literal interpretation of one verse in Genesis that states God created creatures according to their kind. Some have taken to mean no new species have evolved from the time of creation until now. Therefore, evolution is wrong. Perhaps what we need here is clarification of our understanding of the term, ‘species.’

Let me clarify myself - “I haven’t seen any species that are evolving into different species” I do not in any way reject the fact that animals evolve according to their surroundings and habitats. [Again] what I do have a problem with is the idea that species can separate into different species [ie. macroevolution]. If we had any true, hands-down, unobjectionable scientific proof, nonetheless proof in itself, that species evolved into other species, the theory of evolution would not be such a hot topic of debate amongst Christian circles like ourselves - thus I must grind against your statement of confidence. Also, I’m not really sure where you’re going with ID, as I’m not even a follower, and it wasn’t even mentioned in my post .

I know you don’t claim to be a follower of ID. Some of arguments you are using are ID arguments against evolution. that’s were I’m going with ID. In addition, this thread is a debate about ID/Creation/Evolution which is why I mention it.

My point was, were all the species of flora and fauna we see in the world today present in the Garden of Eden? If the answer is ‘no,’ then new species did evolve over time. Of course if someone wants to propose another line of thought as to why we have species of flora and fauna today that were not in the Garden of Eden, I am willing to consider it.

The fact that an unborn child develops into an adult is of no more relevance to evolution than a square-dance on the moon. As I said before, human children are conceived because they have DNA that tells them to be conceived as human children - species do not have DNA which tells them to evolve into different species. That very statement is being disputed right here, so I question the reason you say that as a fact. It is not evidence for macroevolution because it has no relevance to the argument whatsoever as far as I see. Unborn babies are not fish.

I didn’t say unborn babies are fish and I would have to disagree. It is very relevant in relation to current debates concerning ‘personhood.’ As is evolution. But perhaps I’m going off into a bit of tangent there and that debate doesn’t really relate to this thread. Suffice to say that just because something does not physically look ‘human,’ that does not mean that is not human, or physically destined to be human. Meaning the human phenotype came about through a series of biological and physical change.

I don’t think I have stated anything I say is a fact. If I have, please point it out and I will clarify. If state anything with confidence, it’s because I believe the reasoning I use is sound. Not because it’s of but based on scholarship and not my own opinions. If anyone takes exception to my speaking with confidence when I state something contrary to what they think, then I am entitled to take exception when they state something with confidence that is contrary to what I think. However, I don’t think I do because I don’t see that as the way to engage in meaningful debate.

In digression - it also has no relevance to debates about abortion either, if it is for supporting abortion anyway.

What I have said above relates to arguments against abortion, not for it. I would be happy to clarify further, but to do so would derail the thread. Again, suffice to say that despite the fact that at certain stages of development it could be argued that an embryo is not human, it is not destined to be anything else but human. In relation to the thread, who’s to say God did not form species described in Genesis from a common ancestor?

 

[minkymurph]

Thus, whether you can rightly call it a piece of tissue or a 7-months-in baby, abortion is the destruction of human life, and it is no more justifiable than the Holocaust of the 1940s.

I think I answered this above

K, I’d respond to this more directly, but again you are talking about ID, which is of no relevance to me, as I don’t believe in that or your version of evolution. Please re-explain/argue this in terms toward a creationist if you want to continue here, because it is like you are mixing creationism and ID into one, which is not the argument we’re having here as far as I know.

You would be quite right not to believe my version of evolution. Why should you believe me anymore than anyone else? Who am I other than another poster on the internet you know nothing about? I could claim to have two or three degrees and none of it may be true. For all you know, I may not even really be a Catholic despite what I say in my profile, but an atheist who wants to convince you of evolution. However, I have not argued my
version of evolution on this forum. If you want to reject the version of evolution I have discussed here, fine. I never said it was infallible and everyone else here is therefore compelled to accept it. As far as mixing creationism and ID is concerned, they are interlinked. Therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable to mix them. If the argument we are having is purely ‘did God create us?’ - you know what I would say to that. As far as I know, what we were discussing the process by which He created us. Feel free to correct me if you think I’m wrong.

 

[buffalo]

Excuse me but searching for patterns and order is an excellent example of the problem with ID.
Humans do this all the time. Example: Seeing Mary in grilled cheese

An example that gets me especially upset.

You asked Rossum if he was comfortable with his assumptions. I’m not Rossum, but if I were I would ask you what that would have to do with truth? Does the truth have to be comfortable? That may explain ID which predicts nothing.
However the supporters of it are quite predictable.

I will have to kill two posts with one stone.

I have posted the predictions twice already.

StA -
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.

 

[buffalo]

Consider Facilitated Variation

 

[StrawberryJam]

I will have to kill two posts with one stone.

I have posted the predictions twice already.

StA -
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.

I hate to burst your pride bubble, but you did nothing but expose yet another problem I did not wish to bring up, with this whole nonesense that it’s so complex, therefore…
ID!
Your ID starts out with a conclusion. That is not Science my friend.

 

[StAnastasia]

StA -
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.

CSI and I
D are both bogus. That’s why they’ve never attained traction in the scientific world. No discoveries, no advancement of scientific knowledge, etc.

 

[StrawberryJam]

CSI and I
D are both bogus. That’s why they’ve never attained traction in the scientific world. No discoveries, no advancement of scientific knowledge, etc.

They get traction here unfortunately.

 

[samiam1611]

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

                                      Yes.

No, ID is pseudoscience.

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).

That’s not an observation. That’s a conclusion. You can’t observe an intelligent agent producing anything, bc the intelligent agent you speak of is invisible.

Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

High levels? Really? Level indicates a numerical/measurable difference. What is your unit of measure?

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.

Just because/if something needs all its parts to function does not mean that those parts were specified by a designer.

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

That is an erroneous conclusion.

 

[tonyrey]

No, ID is pseudoscience.

In that case psychology is pseudoscience! Do you think all conclusions about the nature of the mind are worthless and unverifiable? That is a notion based on the bankrupt theory of materialism…

 

[tonyrey]

They get traction here unfortunately.

Is your concept of traction unscientific?