ID, evolution, and critical thinking

ID, evolution, and critical thinking

There are 88 comments on the World Magazine story from May 7, 2014, titled ID, evolution, and critical thinking. In it, World Magazine reports that:

Intelligent design is an evidence-based theory of the origin of life. ID is a positive argument for an intelligent designer, not a negative one against naturalistic evolution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at World Magazine.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Level 4

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1 May 7, 2014
ID is purely speculative and does not provide testable hypotheses, therefore it should not be confused with science. Evolution should be taught as science since it qualifies as a valid theory. Perhaps ID should be covered in a social studies class, not as a credible scientific alternative to evolution, but as a current topic of controversy.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2 May 8, 2014
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
ID is purely speculative and does not provide testable hypotheses, therefore it should not be confused with science. Evolution should be taught as science since it qualifies as a valid theory. Perhaps ID should be covered in a social studies class, not as a credible scientific alternative to evolution, but as a current topic of controversy.
Agreed.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#3 May 8, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
Also agreed.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#4 May 8, 2014
Also wondering if Taxy is high.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#5 Jun 14, 2014
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
ID is purely speculative and does not provide testable hypotheses, therefore it should not be confused with science. Evolution should be taught as science since it qualifies as a valid theory. Perhaps ID should be covered in a social studies class, not as a credible scientific alternative to evolution, but as a current topic of controversy.
You are speculating, not critically thinking about both ID & the religion of evolution. Fruad investigations posit an intelligent design then test it. SETI posits that some signals may be inetteigently designed then test this hypothesis.

"Intelligently Designed" simply refers to how something arose & this may either be true or it may be false. True or False can be tested for & if you believe they can't then you are not thinking, your brain evolved mindlessly for no reason so cannot be trusted. Think!!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#6 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
You are speculating, not critically thinking about both ID & the religion of evolution.
This demonstrates evolution is not a religion:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
In Six Days wrote:
Fruad investigations posit an intelligent design then test it.
I think you mean "fraud". That's because there ARE no tests for Intelligent Designers poofing lifeforms into existence. Or universes for that matter.
In Six Days wrote:
SETI posits that some signals may be inetteigently designed then test this hypothesis.
No, SETI tests for SIMPLE communication signals, as they are more likely to be used by an intelligent civilization to attempt to contact other civilizations on other worlds:

http://www.space.com/1826-seti-intelligent-de...

Notice how even SETI says what you say is BS.

And that this info that you got from your buddy Dembski (who was, is, by the way, not a scientist and speaking OUT of his area of expertise) is nine years old. Almost as old as the rebuttal that showed Billy to be an idiot.
In Six Days wrote:
"Intelligently Designed" simply refers to how something arose & this may either be true or it may be false.
But there's no way to tell because it's a non-falsifiable concept.

That's why the IDCers can't tell us who or what made it, what the heck it even did, where it did it, when it did it, or how we can tell these things.
In Six Days wrote:
True or False can be tested for & if you believe they can't then you are not thinking, your brain evolved mindlessly for no reason so cannot be trusted. Think!!
Then in that case just show us how IDC can be tested for empirically in an objective manner via the scientific method. Then all our objections will finally be laid to rest.

After all you're so smart, even the guys who INVENTED ID can't even do that - should be no problem for you.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#7 Jun 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
This demonstrates evolution is not a religion:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
<quoted text>
I think you mean "fraud". That's because there ARE no tests for Intelligent Designers poofing lifeforms into existence. Or universes for that matter.
<quoted text>
No, SETI tests for SIMPLE communication signals, as they are more likely to be used by an intelligent civilization to attempt to contact other civilizations on other worlds:
http://www.space.com/1826-seti-intelligent-de...
Notice how even SETI says what you say is BS.
And that this info that you got from your buddy Dembski (who was, is, by the way, not a scientist and speaking OUT of his area of expertise) is nine years old. Almost as old as the rebuttal that showed Billy to be an idiot.
<quoted text>
But there's no way to tell because it's a non-falsifiable concept.
That's why the IDCers can't tell us who or what made it, what the heck it even did, where it did it, when it did it, or how we can tell these things.
<quoted text>
Then in that case just show us how IDC can be tested for empirically in an objective manner via the scientific method. Then all our objections will finally be laid to rest.
After all you're so smart, even the guys who INVENTED ID can't even do that - should be no problem for you.
Your post is bullocks
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#8 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post is bullocks
Your claim is unsupported. Rectify your error.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#9 Jun 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claim is unsupported. Rectify your error.
Not to an idiot I won't

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#10 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to an idiot I won't
But it seems like you talk to yourself all of the time.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#11 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to an idiot I won't
Then my claims remain validated while yours remain unsupported.

But at least you admitted your error. Which is almost a miracle in fundie terms.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#12 Jun 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then my claims remain validated while yours remain unsupported.
But at least you admitted your error. Which is almost a miracle in fundie terms.
No, you imagined an error then projected it. You are uninformed and very thick.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#13 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
You are speculating, not critically thinking about both ID & the religion of evolution. Fruad investigations posit an intelligent design then test it. SETI posits that some signals may be inetteigently designed then test this hypothesis.
"Intelligently Designed" simply refers to how something arose & this may either be true or it may be false. True or False can be tested for & if you believe they can't then you are not thinking, your brain evolved mindlessly for no reason so cannot be trusted. Think!!
Could you please write comprehensible posts please, i cannot make any sense out of it.
As for the things I was able to make sense of: Intelligent Design has NEVER provided ONE testable hypothesis. End of story.
Evolution is established science and no religion.
Up to the next tattle.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#14 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you imagined an error then projected it. You are uninformed and very thick.
No, I demonstrated your errors. You have not demonstrated mine.

Apparently you are not aware how a debate forum works. Each side takes a position and presents the evidence for each. Then their opposition takes it down. When this happens the opponent must address those rebuttals. So far I've made claims and backed them up. Then I addressed yours. So far you've made claims and NOT backed them up. Then instead of providing a rebuttal to my posts you've showered me with insults and ad-homs.

So if I am uninformed, as I said before, you should have NO PROBLEM in showing that. And to do that, all you need to do is be the first man on the planet to answer this simple question:

What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID?

Thanks in advance.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#15 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post is bullocks
Explain WHY or otherwise, f*ck off, you are in a debate forum where you are supposed to back up your assessments by substantial answers.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#16 Jun 14, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain WHY or otherwise, f*ck off, you are in a debate forum where you are supposed to back up your assessments by substantial answers.
Advocate for the idiot are you? You want stuff explaining to YOU & for YOU, ask for yourself & it shall be explained unto thee.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#17 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Advocate for the idiot are you? You want stuff explaining to YOU & for YOU, ask for yourself & it shall be explained unto thee.
If I'm an idiot then how come I can back myself up and you can't?

This is why I'm never offended by fundies. Just making a point.(shrug)
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#18 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Advocate for the idiot are you? You want stuff explaining to YOU & for YOU, ask for yourself & it shall be explained unto thee.
Erat demonstrandum.
Explain it or f*ck off.
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#19 Jun 14, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Erat demonstrandum.
Explain it or f*ck off.
Oh dear. If the universe is designed, we should expect it to be fine-tuned for life. Guess what when we examine the universe, it really is fine-tuned. Waal.

You want more & may be for that the Dude as well eh given you've taken him under your wing & stuff?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#20 Jun 14, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear. If the universe is designed, we should expect it to be fine-tuned for life. Guess what when we examine the universe, it really is fine-tuned. Waal.
Why couldn't it be fine-tuned to NOT have life? What mechanisms are responsible for this tuning? What evidence do you have?

The existence of life in the universe is NOT evidence of the existence of life in the universe AND that it was poofed into existence by an invisible magic Jew.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 22 min Uncle Sam 11,711
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 29,557
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Don Barros Serrano 150,647
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr MIDutch 195,615
Humans Performing Dentistry 8000 Years Before F... 22 hr MIDutch 1
Science News (Sep '13) Tue scientia potentia... 3,621
News Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory (Jan '15) Tue asar 12
More from around the web