Answer: human nature, but only if one can figure it out for himself or herself.
The satire you link above is, of course, nothing like reality (although it is quite funny). Like most attempts to discredit science, it resorts to loaded language, misrepresentation and outright lies.
I agree, ID is not a scientific theory, by the very inclusion of God within it’s hypothesis renders it non-scientific, that is not to say ID isn’t true, but it’s an explanation, not a scientifically (i assume we’re dealing with syllogism here) proven fact or theory.
Just got round to listening to this. It’s just a regurgitation of all the well-debunked arguments for ID - irreducible complexity, appearance of design = design, etc.Here’s a very good talk by Dr. Bierle (PhD in Biology, if I recall), who talks about evidence of God from an intelligent design viewpoint. I think he shows how the bombardier beetle proves that God had to design this particular creature vs. it just “evolving” that way. The way the chemicals mix and the timing had to really all happen at once, vs. step by step. Otherwise, it would’ve blown itself up out of existence.
alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Don_Bierle-Where%20is%20Evidence_For_God.mp3
Just download it to your PC, MP3 player, iPod/iPad, etc., and enjoy.
ID ain’t science, it’s creationism wearing a lab coat.
It’s not the inclusion of God specifically that renders it non-scientific; the inclusion of any supernatural, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, uninvestigable, unnecessary gap-filler would make it so. God is just one example of such a gap-filler.
In the same context that astrology is a valid science.
It also has the effect of rendering it impossible to conduct any experiment to disprove ID. If the Designers were aliens from planet Zorg then we could disprove ID by showing the existence of something that those aliens could not do. Since God is omnipotent, there is nothing He cannot do so it is impossible to disprove ID if God, or any other omnipotent entity, is included.
Oh, please.
What’s ironic about ID is that its proponents claim it’s scientific - but then science debunks all the ‘evidence’ that IDers put forward to substantiate their belief!
IDvolution is not the same as ID the science. This is ID the science:
What is intelligent design? See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
**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.
**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 was hardly triumphantly gushing! I don’t care about Antony Flew and his views per se. He is just a good case study from which someone like yourself could learn to tone down your condescending rhetoric about the evident idiocy of ID to anyone who is not already convinced on other grounds that God exists.
Interesting point. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
my apologies, i thought ID was simply saying God is responsible for evolution and not actually carrying out scientific research.
It is a valid science, that doesn’t mean it is correct.
I am am babtized so as I understand it I am irrevocably Christian, so I must qualify as a heretic. That is why Jewish babies that had been baptized without their parent’s consent were thought to need to be taken from their parents. (Not worth getting into since we already know that ther Church has never EVER done anything, ANYTHING, wrong.)
It’s discouraging to learn that you don’t believe that human beings ought not be imprisoned or otherwise punished for stating their beliefs publically.
Please. You have the freedom to reject or accept whatever evidence is presented. You have the freedom to decide if the evidence fits your definition or doesn’t fit your definition.
From this view I guess you would say that whether or not the Catholic Church could be wrong on a moral issue is just a bad question. It would be a misunderstanding to say yes or no.
Catholic Baptism is a Sacrament. Choosing to participate in life as a theist or non-theist is a personal choice. Big difference.