That's a blanket statement just as bad as intelligent design...you are just assuming there exist physical factors to make evolution occur, and even if we haven't identified all of them yet they obviously must exist...philosophically speaking, that isn't any better of an argument than intelligent design, which just assumes God aided evolution even though we have yet to prove that assertion...

Certainly science has a better track record and so there's nothing wrong with saying science is more likely to supply the correct answer than intelligent design...but you are assuming an absolute position...

In science, a physical reason is inherently assumed even if we don't know about it...the proper criticism of intelligent design from a scientific perspective is not that it is wrong and "real" science is right, but that intelligent design cannot be tested while physical theories can...

In philosophy, intelligent design cannot be ruled out unless a competing theory explains evolution just as well as intelligent design...obviously pulling the "God" card is hard to argue against (since you can't directly prove it's wrong) unless you have a complete physical theory...

Any theory regarding abiogenesis must explain not only how life arises, but what drives that process...intelligent design argues that God was needed to drive that particular processes as opposed to science showing physical reasons (such as entropy, for example) why that process would occur on its own...intelligent design is not an alternative to evolution as much as it is a theory regarding why evolution would occur...intelligent design may be completely bogus and proved wrong, but a wrong theory is still a theory...

There is no one single complete theory regarding abiogensis that has the consensus of the scientific community, pointing even more to the fact that the driving force behind evolution and the creation of life has yet to be solidly determined by science...doesn't automatically make intelligent design right, but your dismissal of it seems more based on a distaste for religion than anything else, and that attitude is about as far from scientific as one can get...

Creationism in its broadest sense argues that God created the world...but with the advent of the phrase "Intelligent Design" (as it relates to biology), Creationism usually refers to a literal interpretation of Genesis while Intelligent Design accepts the mechanism of evolution with the caveat that evolutionary forces are "inspired" by God...

Creationist museums will have people walking in the same "exhibit" as dinosaurs, adhering to the strict literal interpretation that all life was created at once simply by the word of God...so for all intents and purposes, contexts and connotation make Creationism and Intelligent Design different things...

Like Texas?  Not as bad as blanket state legislation (which is on the floor in Missouri)...

The scientific community is still in the process of forming a single, cohesive theory regarding abiogenesis...intelligent design, while definitely a theory, does not qualify as a scientific theory (since it cannot tested) and as such really is not relevant to the scientific community...independent of intelligent design though, to say evolution is complete is simply wrong...there is still a lot of work that needs to be done (especially regarding abiogenesis) and one does not need religion to see that...

Scientific theories do depend heavily on popular opinion...their "popularity" has no bearing on their correctness (the truth is the truth) but it does have bearing on their ability to be funded, supported, and incorporated into education...right or wrong, the science we accept today was proliferated by popular opinion...in fact, "correct" theories like gravitational lensing were popularized or vindicated by experiments rift with error...to think the history of science is a logical, unbiased pursuit of pure knowledge even in recent times is simply naive...the system may not be how science should work, but that's how the world is...

There are good reasons to dismiss Intelligent Design, but you should not be criticizing the theory because its advocates are loony "religious folk"...if you really are going to play the "unbiased, logical scientist", then Intelligent Design's association with religion should be entirely irrelevant...there are logical reasons for dismissing Intelligent Design, such as Popper's test or the argument of economy...so stick to those instead of critiquing the theory because of its advocates or associations....

As I noted above, Intelligent Design argues that science has failed to adequately explain why abiogenesis occurred and suggests that instead of a physical reason necessitating evolution to occur, God "weighted the dice" to create the world we live in....is it scientific?  Well, since it's not testable, technically no...but the creation of life is both scientific and philosophical, so a theory need not be scientific in order to be a contributing theory to the beginnings of life...and since intelligent design utilizes the scientific mechanism of evolution, a complete theory certainly could include intelligent design...

Seleuceia, many try to dismiss ‘science’ (when necessary) as some little competitive thing … but we are talking a lot more here. Evolution is independently verified by many different branches of science like Ecology, Genetics, Medicine, Cellular Biology, Immunology, Embryology, Anthropology, Molecular Biology, Histology, Cellular Biology, Anatomy, Paleontology, Cosmetology and logical common sense to name a few … independently confirm evolution … end  of the story.

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution

If you are waiting for absolute proof of anything ... you have a long wait ahead of you.

Unfortunately although my personal interests in the subject matter do include scientific and philosophical enlightenment I do not expect many of the questions I have to be answered "overnight", so I also have an interest in the advocates and lobbyists who are trying to force this kind of crap into the public education system which is something that is happening "overnight". In that regards court decisions in which Books such as "Of Pandas and People" are used as "evidence" are quite relevant. When the writers,editors,and publishers of such "science textbooks" are employed by political lobbies and published by religious media outlets then the current debate justifiable extends outside of scientific study. Particularly when you are debating some people who cannot or refuse to understand the difference between science and "science fiction".

Not to mention that my formal education and classroom debate ended many moons ago so although posting here is ultimately to learn about the subject matter and human nature I am not seeking to be graded by "the professor" so comic relief is quite welcome.

Looks like Ron Perlman after a hard night on the piss....

Samcro's "the morning after"....

I am not questioning the validity of evolution, it is a mechanism with a lot of support for it...

What is not well understand that is point is the very beginnings of life...we don't know why life started any more than we know why the Big Bang occurred...we just know that both process happened and how they occurred, and that's as far as we've gotten so far...

Intelligent Design is not testable which is why we don't consider it scientific...nevertheless, it is still a theory, and it clearly is related to how life started...

Even if Intelligent Design isn't technically a scientific theory of abiogenesis, that doesn't really change anything philosophically...abiogenesis is so fundamental that it is tackling an issue inherently scientific and philosophical...

Philosophical inclinations are melded with science all the time, for better or worse....it is not uncommon for quantum mechanics to be taught and described with certain bias regarding its determinism (something that as of right now is entirely philosophical)...

I took a vacation of sorts from the forums for a few weeks (only came back to help with modding questions) and then when I returned, my interest in this thread (and the other related ones) sort of waned...these aren't exactly the types of conversations to miss big chunks of and then dive right back in...

That evolution occurred is associated with completely different evidence than how evolution occurred...

Arguing against the occurence of evolution is, as far as I'm concerned, a ridiculous position to take as the evidence is quite overwhelming...

How did evolution occur?  We have pretty solid models regarding the evolution of a single species, though transmutation and abiogenesis are a little more wishy washy...it's not that we don't know anything, it's just that it's not fully understood...

Because there is uncertainty, there is wiggle room to say that God was involved...

Think of it this way...imagine I'm a desperate man greatly in need of money and I bet that I can flip a coin and get heads 100 times in a row...I proceed to flip the coin and amazingly, I get 100 heads in a row...

We know it is possible...we even understand the mathematics of the situation...but you have to admit it is pretty damn unlikely, and given the context (I really really needed to win the bet because I was desperate) it should be no surprise that someone would say "Looks like God was on your side"....

Evolution is really no different...right now, we have yet to prove that the evolution of sentient life is an inevitable outcome given the conditions on Earth...as such, there is wiggle room to say God "loaded the dice" or "tilted the odds" to get evolution to occur exactly the way it did...

It is not a logical argument, but people are not purely logical...you see something that is highly unlikely to occur by chance, and it's hard not to think an intelligent something had a hand in it...

We don't have evidence God exists or that God had to "intervene" or "tilt the odds" to get evolution to occur...but we don't have proof he didn't...and in this situation, the only thing science really has going for it is the argument of economy..."testibility" and all that great scientific stuff really doesn't matter because it dismisses ID rather than disproving it outright....

Hell, I could throw a little caveat into the 3rd postulate of Quantum Mechanics and say "any individual measurement obtained is decided by God"...you can't prove me wrong scientifically, you simply can't...dismissing my theory because it "can't be tested" and therefore "isn't scientific" is completely meaningless because you still haven't proved me wrong...

Being found "not guilty" isn't the same as being innocent...you might get off by a technicality or a screwy jury, but it doesn't change any fundamental truth about your innocence...the same goes here, you can dismiss ID because it can't be tested but you'll never disprove it...ID can always change and be exactly like evolution but with one caveat: God loaded the dice...

ID isn't just "scientific", it is also philosophical, and as such science will never be able to completely dismantle the theory...

Completely irrelevant...the existence of God (and therefore the possibility of his intervention in any evolutionary process) is independent of the "correctness" of the Bible...disproving the Bible does nothing to discredit the possibility of God or his likeliness to affect evolution on earth...

Of course you cannot be proven wrong scientifically, because you're not using science to make your argument.

No, the same does not apply here.  Science isn't about a jury or a vote.  It's about observable facts.  Postulate a theory which has evidence which can be tested and you can lay a claim to being based in science.  Postulate that an invisible flatulent homosexual unicorn (you know... god...) stuck his horn in a fish and turned it into a frog...  That's ID.

ID isn't scientific.  PERIOD.  It's entirely philosophical and almost utterly laughable as it is commonly presented by the army of mouthbreathing christards who support it.  Science CANNOT dismantle the 'theory' because it's just some ridiculous nonsense based in poorly conceived probabilities with more assumptions than anyone would sanely bother with.  And its absolutely failing trump card, god.

This is true.  But disproving the bible goes a long way to demonstrating just how devoid of logic and reason Christianity (and other religions) is.  The ultimate question of god is really pretty damn boring and pointless anyway.  It's just when man decides to use god for his own purposes that it becomes interesting, though highly problematic.

I spent the better part of yesterday trying to find a minimally responsible expression of creation ‘science’ but was unable to, no real surprise there I suppose. What perplexes me is why biblical realists feel the need to try and use science to disprove evolution ... when it is that very same science they are trying to prove as unfounded in the first place? If there is a better way of shooting one’s own foot … I don’t know what that might be. The arguments I have reviewed are all over the board but interlinked to one idea or concept … that god created the universe and everything in it ~6,000 years ago. Amazing that; they try to use science (that which has brought all of our modern marvels and wonders) as a bludgeon to drive us back (emotionally in the least) to a Bronze Age mentality where superstition ruled the day and science was all but nonexistent. Theologically this seems to be the goal anyway. I don’t think many are willing (or able) to even contemplate what this would mean for humanity … the living in the real world aspect of it anyway. The first thousand years of Christianity should convince every one of the obvious problems involved with ultimate theological mind control … well it should anyway. Islam is a good present day example of such faulty mind control over the masses which supersedes all legal state limitations and their secular restrictions.

The bible is a construct of the RCC (an undeniable fact) and as such is of no use (to me anyway) to one who wants to prove the existence of the supposed one god (circular logic). It seems that this god fellow was well known before this construct (like from time zero onward) and therefore should be provable (historically) without its (their) use. Or is there an argument that this deity removed all proof of his existence from the face of the earth to what ... promote his cause??? This doesn’t seem to be acceptable to most religious folk (but why???). Islam believes in the very same god and they don’t use the bible … of yea, they just have their own version, their own construct. Shouldn’t this fact alone cause some red flags to pop up? Christians see no problem pointing out the delusions of ALL the other religions … but they will not (refuse to) even contemplate their own objections of all the others … by ANY internal reflection whatsoever. To be fair, ALL the other religions operate with this exact same self-imposed handicap. They are all prim and proper in their own minds, just because they have a book of their own (which tells them so) … or they just plagiarize someone else’s book of complete truths (removing or ignoring parts as they see fit) for their own cult misuse.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that the fight is not one between science and theology … it is between the different theologians themselves … or at least it should be. Disproving evolution with science is just impossible as it is that very same science which proves our evolution to be true in the first place (???).  And besides, hypothetically removing evolution from the equation will in no way solve any of the theological differences nor will it confirm (or deny) the existence of god. It is just a ‘straw man’ endeavor to confuse the real root issue. And in parting, I would raise this point: Why is it that none of the world’s religions can in any way prove the existence of their chosen immortal(s) in any real world manner … instead they all rely on faith alone. And yet, they all presumably represent the true and absolute word of god (often the same god???) … and this balderdash seems to depend only on where one was born, who one was raised by and who participated in their brainwashing … and that is not much proof of anything real (besides complete mind control) in which to place one’s absolute faith upon, IMO. There was good reason why the biblical ‘Tree of Knowledge’ was chosen to be the bearer of bad fruit … I will get to that soon enough.

In order to believe in creationism, the Christian (Muslim?, Jew?) who takes their bible as the literal word of god, MUST believe the universe is <6,000 years old, that all life on earth was eradicated 4347 years ago and that the diversity of life we have today “evolved?” from pairs of kinds (those not sacrificed anyway) and spread around the bridgeless world. Biblically we have1556 years from Adam to Noah’s son Shem, then 390 years from Shem to Abraham and then 1945 years from Abraham to Jesus birth. Add in today’s date (+ 2012) and we get from the creation of the universe to the present in just 5,903 years, amazing that. That is ~750,000 times younger than the scientific view, hardly a trivial error. But THIS is the only way to incorporate the “original sin” … the basis for the biblical god views … if the bible were to be believed. I just don’t believe the bible and for good reasons.

You are all making baby Jesus cry!  Don't you care for your souls?  They are going to burn in fiery darkness forever!  Of course there is a God!  How could you deny it?  Here, I will speak in tongues and send you a message from God!  "Abadudoody ma poody la kachooey"!  Now do you believe?  How could I know Angelese if God didn't teach me?  

*this was a recreation of a speech my grandmother gave to me almost 20 years ago.  And the part that bothers me the most? I fucking feel for this bullshit and didn't wake up for another 10 years. 

Now if that were something MY grandmother had done there'd be cause for concern.....

....she snuffed it 50 years ago....

Kitzmiller vs Dover Board of Education (11/11) … why are we even having a discussion … then again it isn’t much of one is it, hahaha. The professed credulity of many religious folk … we have the internet for goodness sake … is amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8-Ve4sfM2g&NR=1&feature=endscreen