Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 25, 2025, 11:31 pm

Poll: Can Intelligent Design be considered Science?
This poll is closed.
Yes, and has powerful evidence to support it
4.35%
1 4.35%
Yes, but I don't agree with it
0%
0 0%
No, design is not testable
17.39%
4 17.39%
No, but I agree with it
0%
0 0%
No, religious dogma
78.26%
18 78.26%
Only if science abandons its presumption of naturalism
0%
0 0%
It depends
0%
0 0%
Total 23 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?
#17
RE: Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?
(March 25, 2017 at 7:53 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Specified complexity as it has been advanced by proponents like William Dembski is known to be pseudoscientific.  Its claims to mathematical rigor are false and it depends upon unspecified statistical operations.  Moreover, it's a thinly veiled cover for religious speculations as the unspecified designer is presumed to be God, and not a naturalistic speculation like panspermia.  This takes it outside the realm of legitimate scientific speculation.  At bottom of the specified complexity argument is the analogy that because human designers produce artifacts possessing specified complexity, the existence of specified complexity is an indication of a non-natural process (design).  This ignores the fact that human capacity for design is supposedly naturalistic in origin as having been the product of evolution.

Irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and thus doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis.  It, too, postulates a supernatural designer by necessity.

Contrary to your claim that ID proponents do not push teaching ID in schools, one of the best funded organizations, the Discovery Institute, does just that by promoting its covert campaign to "Teach The Controversy."

Quote:"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign, conducted by the Discovery Institute, to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The campaign claims that fairness and equal time requires educating students with a 'critical analysis of evolution'[7] where "the full range of scientific views",[8] evolution's "unresolved issues", and the "scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory"[9] will be presented and evaluated alongside intelligent design concepts like irreducible complexity[10] presented as a scientific argument against evolution through oblique references to books by design proponents listed in the bibliography of the Institute-proposed "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plans.[11]

The intelligent design movement and the Teach the Controversy campaign are directed and supported largely by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian[12][13] think tank based in Seattle, Washington. The overall goals of the movement were stated as "to defeat scientific materialism" and "to replace [it] with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

Yes, I know they want evolution to be taught as a controversy, but currently are not for pushing ID into public schools.
Hail Satan!  Bow Down Diablo

Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Intelligent Design as a scientific theory? - by SuperSentient - March 25, 2017 at 2:46 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Serious] What is the current best scientific evidence we have that shows that consciousness... born_to_be_a_loser 28 5106 January 14, 2025 at 8:11 pm
Last Post: Tonus
  Is "Cause and Effect" Scientific? Lord Andreasson 11 2709 October 7, 2024 at 6:36 pm
Last Post: Sheldon
  Star Trek theory Won2blv 10 2774 June 24, 2023 at 6:53 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Scientific/objective purpose of human species, may be to replicate universes blue grey brain 6 1705 November 25, 2018 at 10:17 am
Last Post: unfogged
  Simulation Theory according to Dilbert Neo-Scholastic 110 21449 May 10, 2017 at 12:06 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Simulation Theory Documentary Neo-Scholastic 25 7110 August 30, 2016 at 3:45 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
Exclamation Can you give me scientific references to mass loss during the pass over? theBorg 26 6345 August 18, 2016 at 8:17 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Questioning Scientific Titans ScepticOrganism 19 4463 July 1, 2016 at 11:56 am
Last Post: CapnAwesome
  Scientific Studies IATIA 9 2712 May 11, 2016 at 7:48 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  New theory on how life began KUSA 19 4844 March 3, 2016 at 6:33 pm
Last Post: Fireball



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)