Comments on: “Intelligent Design”

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:29:48 +0000

Well, the problem is that originally ID was the theory that evolution and all science was working side-by-side with some higher power, just by the great complexity and chance involved with creating life. There’s alot more to it than that, but it would take along time to explain. The fact is, Intelligent Design, in its original and true form, did not discount any theory in science whatsoever.

But the second the religious extremists heard about a theory that combined credible science with a belief in the higher power, they jumped on the bandwagon and bastardized it into what it is now, which is a thinly veiled guise of creationism.

It’s a shame to the moderate christians, who are the majority of christians, by the way, that ID was not allowed to remain as it was, and be a way for people to reconcile their beliefs with science and religion.

Also, any moderate christian does not want in any way shape or form, to have ID taught in schools. That is ridiculous and benefits noone.

By: Rich Tatum

Rich Tatum — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:53:42 +0000

Perhaps the panspermia or exogenesis theories are a better example of the testable scientific method, I suppose?

Even the best evolutionary theories, at some point, rest on untested and unverifiable hypothetical assumptions. It takes as much faith to believe in life out of choas as it does life from a design.

Regards,

Rich.

By: Dehumanizer

Dehumanizer — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:11:54 +0000

Sean: not the same thing. They persecuted Galileo for religious reasons, because, well, they could. Now that they really can’t (though that doesn’t stop them from trying), they try other ways. It’s not enough to have creationism taught in religion classes, they want it in science classes as well. So they give it another name and call it a “science”…

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:38:17 +0000

Didn’t we already do this with Galileo?

By: Dehumanizer

Dehumanizer — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:27:31 +0000

Thanks for the reply (and it’s nice to have one which completely disagrees with me! What took you people so long? :)).

I can accept that ID isn’t necessarily the same as Creationism, but Bush’s version of it certainly is. Sometimes, though, people say “aliens” instead of “God”. They can’t, anyway, accept that maybe things occur and have ocurred naturally, that Occam’s Razor means that, if it could happen both with and without a designer, then the hypothesis with the least number of elements is the most likely one.

Anyway, there’s more about this here - and said much better than I could.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:09:34 +0000

The problem with what you’ve written here is that most of it is simply false. ID is quite distinct from creationism; it operates within the sphere of scientific method, generating and testing hyphothesis; it is falsifiable based on those hypotheses; many of the scientists who are promoting ID do not believe in the Bible; I don’t think there is any ID theorist who believes in the “young earth”; ID scientists have hundreds of peer-reviewed papers to their credit; and your post here is quite misinformed overall.

But I don’t hold that against anyone except for the media and commentators who have also been spreading this kind of misinformation.