"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

Cypress said:
Yes, the holy rollers wanted to sneak it into public school science education. That is precisely why there were court cases.
Click to expand...

"Practical Value" Is Anathema in Schools

There's no practical reason to teach evolution, either. It's not like we are going to travel to another planet and create life, so we need to see how it's been done.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the proposal was to teach it as the equivalent of any other explanation of origin......
Click to expand...

Every legitimate science class I took never provided any scientific explanation for the cause of the Big Bang, or the cause of abiogenesis.

The honest answer is we don't know.

The focus in class was on testable theories, evolution by natural selection and cosmic inflation and expansion.

There isn't even the remotest chance ID is testable scientifically, and that's why the courts told the ID proponents to take a hike. It is strictly in the realm of metaphysics and ontology.
 
Cypress said:
Every legitimate science class I took never provided any scientific explanation for the cause of the Big Bang, or the cause of abiogenesis.

The honest answer is we don't know.

The focus in class was on testable theories, evolution by natural selection and cosmic inflation and expansion.

There isn't even the remotest chance ID is testable scientifically, and that's why the courts told the ID proponents to take a hike. It is strictly in the realm of metaphysics and ontology.
Click to expand...

This thread is kind of vacillating back and forth around the meaning of "origins". At no point in school did anyone teach us anything about the ultimate origins of the universe apart from the Big Bang. We have data for the Big Bang but no way to know anything about what came "before". As such THAT origins is not taught per se.

The origin of LIFE is reasonably understandable from a purely chemical point of view. And given that all the pieces, parts of life are just plain ol' chemicals, some of which occur quite naturally even today, there's literally no reason to assume the need of a "designer" or anything like that.

That's why I asked FalseProphet what he thought was taught in school these days. He couldn't answer the question.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
This thread is kind of vacillating back and forth around the meaning of "origins". At no point in school did anyone teach us anything about the ultimate origins of the universe apart from the Big Bang. We have data for the Big Bang but no way to know anything about what came "before". As such THAT origins is not taught per se.

The origin of LIFE is reasonably understandable from a purely chemical point of view. And given that all the pieces, parts of life are just plain ol' chemicals, some of which occur quite naturally even today, there's literally no reason to assume the need of a "designer" or anything like that.

That's why I asked FalseProphet what he thought was taught in school these days. He couldn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

P.P. is a troll. The end.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
This thread is kind of vacillating back and forth around the meaning of "origins". At no point in school did anyone teach us anything about the ultimate origins of the universe apart from the Big Bang. We have data for the Big Bang but no way to know anything about what came "before". As such THAT origins is not taught per se.

The origin of LIFE is reasonably understandable from a purely chemical point of view. And given that all the pieces, parts of life are just plain ol' chemicals, some of which occur quite naturally even today, there's literally no reason to assume the need of a "designer" or anything like that.

That's why I asked FalseProphet what he thought was taught in school these days. He couldn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

The chemical cause of abiogenesis is at least plausibly in the realm of scientific testing, famously as the Miller-Urey experiment demostrated.

There is no way anyone can think up a test for an intelligent designer.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
odd....what do you include as a "Debilitating Birth Defect".......birth defects occur in between 2 to 3% of births, but most would not be considered serious enough to be considered debilitating...
Click to expand...

Down syndrome is a genetic condition that causes delays in physical and intellectual development. It occurs in 1 in every 792 live births.

Congenital heart defects occurs in 1 in 110 births and has a variety of causes, including genetic abnormalities or a mistake during fetal development.

Are these not debilitating enough?

Because we can go all the way down the list if we need to!
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Down syndrome is a genetic condition that causes delays in physical and intellectual development. It occurs in 1 in every 792 live births.

Congenital heart defects occurs in 1 in 110 births and has a variety of causes, including genetic abnormalities or a mistake during fetal development.

Are these not debilitating enough?

Because we can go all the way down the list if we need to!
Click to expand...

BEHOLD the wonder of Nature's CREATOR/INTELLIGENT DESIGNER:

The Jewel Wasp. It injects a powerful neurotoxin into a cockroach to turn it into a LIVING ZOMBIE which it then puts in a small chamber with its larvae who proceed to eat the living zombie-roach.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wasp-turns-cockroaches-into-zombies1/

If that isn't the sign of a loving Creator I don't know what is!
 
In defense of Intelligent Design, how do you who disclaim its possibility know for sure that some "God" for lack of a better term, isn't manipulating some aspects of evolution in such a way that it appears natural and random according to the rules science has produced? How would you know?

That isn't to say we show make much of ID, but dismissing out-of-hand is stupid too.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Down syndrome is a genetic condition that causes delays in physical and intellectual development. It occurs in 1 in every 792 live births.

Congenital heart defects occurs in 1 in 110 births and has a variety of causes, including genetic abnormalities or a mistake during fetal development.

Are these not debilitating enough?

Because we can go all the way down the list if we need to!
Click to expand...

you will probably have to do more than that......as the source I linked says, one in 33 births may involve a birth defect but most are not debilitating.....even Down's Syndrome doesn't leave one "weak and infirm"......
 
Perry Phimosis said:
BEHOLD the wonder of Nature's CREATOR/INTELLIGENT DESIGNER:

The Jewel Wasp. It injects a powerful neurotoxin into a cockroach to turn it into a LIVING ZOMBIE which it then puts in a small chamber with its larvae who proceed to eat the living zombie-roach.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wasp-turns-cockroaches-into-zombies1/

If that isn't the sign of a loving Creator I don't know what is!
Click to expand...

Roaches will inherit the world some day after man nukes each other out.

Roaches are the only known living thing to endure a nuclear attack!
 
Cypress said:
The chemical cause of abiogenesis is at least plausibly in the realm of scientific testing, famously as the Miller-Urey experiment demostrated.

There is no way anyone can think up a test for an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...

significant that Miller-Urey was an experiment based on an incorrect assumption of what chemicals would have existed at the time they believe life formed......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment#:~:text=The%20Miller%E2%80%93Urey%20experiment%20(or,of%20life%20under%20those%20conditions.

ultimately, all the experiment proved is that organic chemicals behave normally when combined......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top