Theory in Crisis

[Ouroboros]

Good grief.

Evolution and all other scientific theories say nothing about preventing death. None of them talk about the imaginary resurrection and about the afterlife.

So what in the hell are you talking about?!

Weird, wasn't it?

I almost got the feeling it was an attempt to scare me to belief or something. LOL! If that's the case, little does he/she know about me...

 

[Ouroboros]

ID is a pile of bollocks.

I think the concept has some validity, but the evidence doesn't line up. If there was an intelligent designer, then looking for designs that can only be done through intelligence would be evidence for such designer, so the reasoning on that part isn't wrong. It's just that every piece of evidence to support it is weak and very questionable. The challenge really is to prove that something was indeed designed with intent and intelligence.

 

[gnostic]

I think the concept has some validity, but the evidence doesn't line up. If there was an intelligent designer, then looking for designs that can only be done through intelligence would be evidence for such designer, so the reasoning on that part isn't wrong. It's just that every piece of evidence to support it is weak and very questionable. The challenge really is to prove that something was indeed designed with intent and intelligence.

Claiming there are link between nature and Designer, by conjuring up the imaginary intent plus intelligence, will only leave impossible task of testing their incredible claims. And with the Designer being the agent for the designs, it only revealed that the Designer to be itself the weakest link.

How would they propose to make observation of invisible Designer?

Because that’s the heart of what “evidence” is.

Evidence is observation where any scientist can observe/detect, measure, quantify, test/verify/refute the evidence for their proposed model.

That’s what ID proponents can’t do, especially with this nonexistent Designer. How to do they observe/measure/test something that’s invisible and incorporeal?

And the invisible and incorporeal Designer sounds like another entity with the same attributes - God.

The Designer sounds as implausible as ghosts, ghouls and goblins, zombies, fairies, leprechauns, rainbow-farting unicorns...

 

[tayla]

“Darwin had nothing to support his theory… It is still a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without factual support and very far from that self evident axiom some would have us believe...One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance would have more than metaphysics and myth to offer”.
M.Denton (Molecular Biologist)1986 Theory in crisis p69

You might want to check out Denton's view as they "evolved".

 

[tayla]

“...evolution has many dissidents, some with advanced scientific degrees, who deny that evolution is a fact and who insist that an intelligent Creator caused all living things to come into being in furtherance of a purpose.
Phillip E. Johnson Darwin on Trial p1

Phillip E. Johnson is the father of ID. His list of critics is a mile long.

 

[tayla]

“The results of the cumulative efforts of [biologist] to investigate life at the molecular level is a loud, clear , piercing cry of “Design!” The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science”. Darwin’s Black Box Michael J. Behe p232

Weird that his example of the irreducibly complex, intelligently designed flagellum is from the bacteria E. Coli; which causes untold suffering and misery in humans.

Why would a supernatural divine intelligent designer create such horrific designs?

 

[tayla]

Often we hear of Evolutionist stating that evolution is not a theory but a scientific fact.

They call it this because they consider it to be near 100% probability that it is correct. But I think most (all?) of them know science enough to know that nothing is 100% certain.

In my opinion, they would be wise to consider the skeptics and critics listening, and to always use the technically correct jargon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They call it this because they consider it to be near 100% probability that it is correct. But I think most (all?) of them know science enough to know that nothing is 100% certain.

In my opinion, they would be wise to consider the skeptics and critics listening, and to always use the technically correct jargon.

The problem is that dishonest creationists try to use proper language against evolution when they argue. I could name specific posters here that do that.