Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[Autodidact]

sandor: Are you the poster who told me you have an undergraduate degree in Biology? So you know what science is, right?

 

[Alceste]

"These guys" have the highest academic credentials and would not write books and have them published that contain bunk: their reputation is on the line and they would not jeopardize their careers.

Two points: 1) A lucrative career in generating ID propaganda does not require a solid reputation in the scientific community and is not dependent on academic credentials. Having a string of letters after your name helps your career, but only because the propaganda technique of "appeal to authority" is more effective when the "authority" is apparently qualified to offer an academic opinion of some kind. 2) Publishers publish books that they believe will be profitable. Whether or not the book contains nothing but bunk is irrelevant.

In addition, these are different "guys" who arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other, so the answer is a qualified no as I also read scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

Wow! Two creationists arrived at the conclusion the universe is designed by God independently of one another! Not only that, but another creationist who sometimes reads random and unrelated articles in peer-reviewed journals also arrived at that conclusion. Well, that proves it. Case closed.

What do you have to support your case, besides your subjective, unsubstantiated opinion? Anybody can be an armchair critic, but I have still to read anything scientific from you that debunks ID. Remenber that the title of the thread is: Does DNA prove ID? Whether you agree or not, I provided proof. Where is yours?

You didn't provide proof, you mentioned a book and said it's reliable because there's math in it.

But to answer your question, creationism is not falsifiable. The burden of proof is with the person making the extraordinary claim. (That's you). It is impossible to prove a negative, which in this case is "prove God didn't create the universe".

 

[sandor606]

Two points: 1) A lucrative career in generating ID propaganda does not require a solid reputation in the scientific community and is not dependent on academic credentials. Having a string of letters after your name helps your career, but only because the propaganda technique of "appeal to authority" is more effective when the "authority" is apparently qualified to offer an academic opinion of some kind. 2) Publishers publish books that they believe will be profitable. Whether or not the book contains nothing but bunk is irrelevant.



Wow! Two creationists arrived at the conclusion the universe is designed by God independently of one another! Not only that, but another creationist who sometimes reads random and unrelated articles in peer-reviewed journals also arrived at that conclusion. Well, that proves it. Case closed.



You didn't provide proof, you mentioned a book and said it's reliable because there's math in it.

But to answer your question, creationism is not falsifiable. The burden of proof is with the person making the extraordinary claim. (That's you). It is impossible to prove a negative, which in this case is "prove God didn't create the universe".

I provided scientific evidence that supports ID, you only provided your personal opinion to deny it. This is my last post to you until you provide the scientific evidence that denies it.

 

[sandor606]

OMG!!! Davison? I debated him for a very short period on an MSN group but was quickly banned because I was putting ol' John on the spot. Even the rest of the creationists gave the manager of the group a hard time about it.

Davison is an outright nutball....borderline insane. The fact that you would cite him at all makes me wonder if you're not a troll. I mean, come on....the Shroud as your avatar, citing Of Pandas and People and John Davison....you're just having us on, aren't you?

Nope, I am real. You don't like it? Too bad. Since you are making it personal with gratuitous insults, this is my last post to you.

You may now continue your opinionated, self-righteous life unincombered by nut cases.

 

[sandor606]

sandor: Are you the poster who told me you have an undergraduate degree in Biology? So you know what science is, right?

Yes, I do. Do you?

 

[sandor606]

As in nonexistent. As noted above, ID as science is every bit as laughable as is your preposterous avatar.

PROVE them so! This is my last post to you until you prove (with scientific evidence)that ID is laughable and the Shroud of Turin is preposterous.

 

[Magic Man]

ID is science: It's supported by scientists with the highest academic credentials who use information from the natural sciences to write their papers and books. I don't know the number (who cares) but have provided the names of some scientists and their books.

Since you make the claim, please provide proof that the content of any of the books I mentioned is NOT science.

ID is not science. There is no way to test whether or not an intelligent being created the universe. It's an idea someone came up with, but that doesn't make it scientific.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., great, then we don't have to argue about that. Now, those names of those many Biologists who accept ID as a scientific theory? Or names of science books or articles espousing the scientific theory of ID? Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

PROVE them so! This is my last post to you until you prove (with scientific evidence)that ID is laughable and the Shroud of Turin is preposterous.

I thought you said you know what science is? Didn't you know that science isn't about proof, it's about evidence?

 

[Magic Man]

PROVE them so! This is my last post to you until you prove (with scientific evidence)that ID is laughable and the Shroud of Turin is preposterous.

He didn't say ID is laughable. He said the idea that ID is science is laughable, which it is. ID is no more scientific than me saying "I have a soul".

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, I do. Do you?

So then where is the experimental evidence?
The primary literature in peer reviewed journals?

You haven't given any evidence, you have just make assertions. Where is the science?

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

Nothing scientific can either debunk or support ID, because ID is not science; it's philosophy. That doesn't mean it can't be argued about, it's just not science.

ID was started by scientists with the highest academic credentials in different fields of the natural sciences who wrote books (I provided info on some) using scientific evidence to support their claim. You and others may not like the conclusion (which is very evident), but the process - the scientific method - was fully applied to arrive at that conclusion. So, intelligent design theory is every bit science as the Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

For the third time, those names of the many Biologists who accept ID as a biological theory?

The only ones I can think of offhand are Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells.

And those books, those ID science books or articles, preferably regarding Biology, what were the names of those again? Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

And no, you're mistaken, the scientific method was not and could not be used to arrive at ID; its very subject matter is outside the scope of the scientific method. The true founder of modern ID,Phillip Johnson, admits as much when he gives as his goal changing the scientific method so that it is no longer based on methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism, an important part of the scientific method, by its very nature can never get you to ID.

Have you read The Wedge Document?

 

[painted wolf]

ID was started by scientists with the highest academic credentials in different fields of the natural sciences

doesn't make it science.

who wrote books (I provided info on some) using scientific evidence to support their claim. You and others may not like the conclusion (which is very evident),

Pop-sci books are not scientific evidence.... Peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals are.

but the process - the scientific method - was fully applied to arrive at that conclusion. So, intelligent design theory is every bit science as the Darwin's theory of evolution.

Incorrect... there has been no experimentation, no testing of any kind and no science papers published in any peer reviewed journals. Arm chair discussions in pop-sci books does not count... where is the hard research?

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

I followed the trial and I was particularly disappointed by Michael Behe's testimony who offered a weak defense of his "irreducuble complexity" theory in support of ID.

Are you suggesting that Behe could have offered a better defense of "irreducibly complex"? He hasn't even offered a consistent definition of the concept much less defended it.

 

[painted wolf]

He hasn't even offered a truly 'irreducibly complex' system. Every one has an evolutionary precursor that is less complex.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

ID was started by scientists with the highest academic credentials in different fields of the natural sciences who wrote books (I provided info on some) using scientific evidence to support their claim. You and others may not like the conclusion (which is very evident), but the process - the scientific method - was fully applied to arrive at that conclusion. So, intelligent design theory is every bit science as the Darwin's theory of evolution.

Where is this scientific evidence? Where did they apply the scientific method?

Look, ID says that an intelligent being designed the universe as we know it. There is no way to test that or apply the scientific method to it.

It's not that we don't like the conclusion. I don't really care whether or not we were created by God, there's just no evidence to support the claim.

 

[Alceste]

I provided scientific evidence that supports ID, you only provided your personal opinion to deny it. This is my last post to you until you provide the scientific evidence that denies it.

No, you did not "provide scientific evidence", as has been repeatedly pointed out by numerous people on this thread. You mentioned a book, and claimed to have read it. Book mentioning =\= scientific proof, even if the book is 706 pages long and appears to contain math.

 

[sandor606]

You haven't given any evidence, you have just make assertions. Where is the science?

wa:do

If you have the audacity to state that I did not provide evidence and just made assertions after I posted the title of books and a peer-reviewed paper, the names of the authors, as well as excerpts from the publications then there is nothing else I wish to discuss with you so this is my last post to you.