• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

B

bluZero

Active Member
themadhair said:
^ Typical standard of scientific evidence presented in support of ID that is presented by the creationist.
Click to expand...

Intelligent design is not a science, I agree, but it is not something to put on the back burner either.

Of Pandas and People in 1989, the words "intelligent design"
 
ThereIsNoSpoon

ThereIsNoSpoon

Active Member
blu said:
Intelligent design is not a science, I agree, but it is not something to put on the back burner either.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. If it is no science then there is no validation through observaton, no model or framework that allows for predictions and testing. If there is no validation, verification, testing .... anything then it is worthless.
Of Pandas and People in 1989...
Click to expand...
horrible waste of paper
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I don't know... it gave us the very important transitional form "cdesign proponentsists", that showed the direct evolution of Intelligent design from creationism.

or more specifically "design proponents" from "creationists".... the joys of sloppy editing. :D

wa:do
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
blu said:
Of Pandas and People in 1989, the words "intelligent design"
Click to expand...

In a book review in 1989 of this "science" book, paleontologist Kevin Padain wrote..

"They pretend that the Tasmanian Wolf, a marsupial, would be placed (classified) with the placental wolf if evolutionists were not so hung up on the single character of their reproductive mode by which marsupials and placentals are traditionally separated. This is a complete falsehood, as anyone with access to the evidence knows. It is not a matter of a single reproductive character, but dozens of characters in the skull, teeth, post-cranial bones (including the marsupial pelvic bones), soft anatomy, and biochemistry, to say nothing of their respective fossil records, that separate the two mammals. About the closest similarity they have going for them is that they are both called "wolf" in English. The same criticism can be applied seriatim to the authors' mystifying discussion of the red and giant "pandas". ”
Padian concluded that, "It is hard to say what is worst in this book: the misconceptions of its sub-text, the intolerance for honest science, or the incompetence with which science is presented. In any case, teachers should be warned against using this book."
​

Bookwatch Reviews (National Center for Science Education)
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
tumbleweed41 said:
In a book review in 1989 of this "science" book, paleontologist Kevin Padain wrote..


"They pretend that the Tasmanian Wolf, a marsupial, would be placed (classified) with the placental wolf if evolutionists were not so hung up on the single character of their reproductive mode by which marsupials and placentals are traditionally separated. This is a complete falsehood, as anyone with access to the evidence knows. It is not a matter of a single reproductive character, but dozens of characters in the skull, teeth, post-cranial bones (including the marsupial pelvic bones), soft anatomy, and biochemistry, to say nothing of their respective fossil records, that separate the two mammals. About the closest similarity they have going for them is that they are both called "wolf" in English. The same criticism can be applied seriatim to the authors' mystifying discussion of the red and giant "pandas". ”
Padian concluded that, "It is hard to say what is worst in this book: the misconceptions of its sub-text, the intolerance for honest science, or the incompetence with which science is presented. In any case, teachers should be warned against using this book."​



Bookwatch Reviews (National Center for Science Education)
Click to expand...

Boy - that Padain guy comes off as a liberal. We would be better off to just not listen to him. Satan may have placed him here, to lead us down a stray path.
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
The Voice of Reason said:
Boy - that Padain guy comes off as a liberal. We would be better off to just not listen to him. Satan may have placed him here, to lead us down a stray path.
Click to expand...
Kevin Padian is not amused:
padian_kevin.jpg


Speaking of Kevin Padian, you can get his testimony from the Dover trial here - Padian Testimony from Dover trail
One of the highlights is his total and utter shredding of Pandas. If fact, his testimony was described by one reporter as "the science lesson I wish I had in school". It is impossible to read it and not learn a bit about evolution.
 
Ringer

Ringer

Jar of Clay
You guys seem to have just spent the last 10 pages mocking a group of people that obviously isn't a majority (or probably not even a minority) on RF. Doing a simple search on Google will yield a few results where your efforts will be more fruitful.
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Ringer said:
You guys seem to have just spent the last 10 pages mocking a group of people that obviously isn't a majority (or probably not even a minority) on RF. Doing a simple search on Google will yield a few results where your efforts will be more fruitful.
Click to expand...

If you've located some scientific evidence supporting intelligent design, please post your findings here, as they seem to be mysteriously absent wherever I look. Much appreciated!
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Ringer said:
You guys seem to have just spent the last 10 pages mocking a group of people that obviously isn't a majority (or probably not even a minority) on RF.
Click to expand...
If this were the case then why is there as Evolution Vs. Creationism forum?

Incidentally, it was this type of discussion (defending science from creationism and other purveyors of pseudoscience) that I initially joined this board for.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
You guys seem to have just spent the last 10 pages mocking a group of people that obviously isn't a majority (or probably not even a minority) on RF. Doing a simple search on Google will yield a few results where your efforts will be more fruitful.
Click to expand...
Actually a Google search will only bring up a lack of evidence. Lots of hemming and hawing and whinging.... but no actual experimental evidence.

wa:do
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
Actually a Google search will only bring up a lack of evidence. Lots of hemming and hawing and whinging.... but no actual experimental evidence.
Click to expand...
I thought he/she was telling us to seek a forum for discussion...
Boy, did I read that one wrong.

I do remember Meyer managed to temporarily get a paper published a few years back. It went along the lines of "I don't know where all the taxonomic information came from so it was designed". The word information had the living **** equivocated out of it IIRC.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
See that's the thing that annoys me the most about ID...
If you can't figure it out, don't worry about it... just call it Intelligently designed and stop investigating.

Like they are such super-genius' that if they personally can't find the answer, then no one ever will. Human knowledge will never progress beyond their current ability.

wa:do
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
painted wolf said:
See that's the thing that annoys me the most about ID...
If you can't figure it out, don't worry about it... just call it Intelligently designed and stop investigating.

Like they are such super-genius' that if they personally can't find the answer, then no one ever will. Human knowledge will never progress beyond their current ability.

wa:do
Click to expand...

Why is it always the dumbest people who think nobody else is smarter than they are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top