(March 26, 2017 at 12:04 am)TheAtheologian Wrote:The Institute for Intelligent Design, or whatever it's calling itself these days, needs to keep saying "real soon now!" or the funds dry up. When you're marking time while waiting for a miracle from God it helps to keep the suckers contributors hoping.(March 25, 2017 at 3:11 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Because they can't come up with a rigor for it. Just bald assertions. The Unintelligent Design Institute didn't want the Dover Bored of Education to add it to the curriculum. That's why they didn't send an serious "talent" to the trial.
Intelligent Design isn't a complete hypothesis, and I don't see it ever being that way. Maybe they also figure that they wouldn't get far by trying to push it into schools.
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: June 4, 2025, 6:05 am
| Poll: Can Intelligent Design be considered Science? This poll is closed. |
|||
| Yes, and has powerful evidence to support it | 1 | 4.35% | |
| Yes, but I don't agree with it | 0 | 0% | |
| No, design is not testable | 4 | 17.39% | |
| No, but I agree with it | 0 | 0% | |
| No, religious dogma | 18 | 78.26% | |
| Only if science abandons its presumption of naturalism | 0 | 0% | |
| It depends | 0 | 0% | |
| Total | 23 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
Thread Rating:
|
Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?
|
 |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
