"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

BidenPresident said:
The Wedge Document, the manifesto written by the Discovery Institute (DI) to outline the future proliferation of Intelligent Design (ID), was composed in 1998. It was leaked a long time ago, and you can see it here. If you read it, you’ll find that they’ve missed their temporal “goals” by a long shot.

In fact, Intelligent design has been discredited, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller decision in Pennsylvania, Judge Jones declared ID “not science” so that teaching it in public schools was prohibited as an incursion of religion into government. ID pretty much died after that, and there have been no further judicial decisions, so banning ID from public schools is the law. (Fingers crossed that the new, religiously conservative Supreme Court doesn’t change that.) ID sure as hell isn’t “the dominant perspective in science.”



Dear BidenDing-Bat,



Please describe the state of affairs that obtained immediately before the "BIG BANG". Bidenpresident.


You are a shit-for-brains Democrat, and even a Democrat who openly supports Biden - which means you must, in fact, have a Down's Syndrome range IQ . Therefore I am not expecting any kind of meaningful/rational response from you ( rather, just some pitiful ad hominem slur).



Dachshund - the Wonder Hound


DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BidenPresident said:
The Wedge Document, the manifesto written by the Discovery Institute (DI) to outline the future proliferation of Intelligent Design (ID), was composed in 1998. It was leaked a long time ago, and you can see it here. If you read it, you’ll find that they’ve missed their temporal “goals” by a long shot.

In fact, Intelligent design has been discredited, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller decision in Pennsylvania, Judge Jones declared ID “not science” so that teaching it in public schools was prohibited as an incursion of religion into government. ID pretty much died after that, and there have been no further judicial decisions, so banning ID from public schools is the law. (Fingers crossed that the new, religiously conservative Supreme Court doesn’t change that.) ID sure as hell isn’t “the dominant perspective in science.”

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/01/08/intelligent-design-nearly-down-the-drain/
Click to expand...
Intelligent design is called humanity. natural displaced ancestors is called homo sapien species.
 
Nordberg said:
Something had to pop into existence. We can see and measure structures in the universe. They exist. Claiming some spiritual being popped into existence and created it all adds unnecessary complexity with no gain. Why did he pop into existence? Who created him? Why did he create the universe? The universe is a shooting gallery of collisions, explosions, dying planets and stars. it is not well-tuned. Earth will get destroyed by a rock shooting through the universe if we don't blow it up first.
Click to expand...

I purposefully steered away from words like spiritual and deity because those anthropomorphic concepts for what amounts to a metaphysical question of ontology.

If I had to use a human concept, I am inclined to use the Neo-confucian concept of Li, which is thought of as a higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos. Something beyond physics and chemistry.

I previously discussed several possibilities for the origin of the Big Bang -->

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...nism-basically-finished&p=5459082#post5459082

But all of these explanations have problems.

We couldn't explain what this higher organizing principle came from, or why it caused the big bang.

On the other hand, invoking a quantum fluctuation for the cause of the big bang has it's own problems. If we went to something from nothing in the blink of an eye, there shouldn't have been laws of physics in the nothingness, and there wouldn't have been a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to tell virtual particles to create themselves.

It's possible our simian brains just don't have the cognitive capacity to fathom the reasons for the cosmos. And we might not even really understand space and time adequately to grasp any sort of higher reality or hyperdimensions.

But it sure is fun to speculate!
 
Cypress said:
You're just frantically googling for tidbits of information on metamorphosis and the Miller Urey experiment, after reading my posts.
Click to expand...

dude......I've argued metamorphosis and Miller here for years......if you don't believe it do a search here for either......

and you are right......my graduate work is in the area of the law and theoloigy, my college classes were in history, sociology and philosophy.......I only took one college science class, basic chemistry, in college......

none of that changes the fact that everything I have posted in this thread is 100% right.......sorry if that chaps your sense of superiority, but you already know what you can do with that silly thing........
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You have no idea what an intelligent designer might be doing.
Click to expand...

^^^^THIS. Yes, and it applies equally to you. If I have no knowledge of the designer then you have no knowledge of the designer.

If the changes were occurring slowly over millennia it might appear natural to the human observer. It's wrong to simply throw out the idea on the basis that it hasn't been observed by current means.
Click to expand...

Are you actually willing to commit to an actual discussion of this point? I would be overjoyed to talk about it, but it will require some work on your end as well.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude......I've argued metamorphosis and Miller here for years......if you don't believe it do a search here for either......

and you are right......my graduate work is in the area of the law and theoloigy, my college classes were in history, sociology and philosophy.......I only took one college science class, basic chemistry, in college......

none of that changes the fact that everything I have posted in this thread is 100% right.......sorry if that chaps your sense of superiority, but you already know what you can do with that silly thing........
Click to expand...
I don't have any doubt that any discussion about science generally involves you frantically googling for tidbits of information because you never did the hard work to acquire a depth and breadth of scientific knowledge yourself.

You're demanding that there be one single test that can settle the question for all time about how abiogenesis happened.

You set the bar impossibly high, and show a complete lack of awareness of high science works.

As Francis Bacon articulated 500 years ago, the scientific method is comprised of inductive reasoning resulting generally in baby steps in the progression of our knowledge of nature.

There's no question that the abiogenesis hypothesis is challenging to test, and remains one of the most important unresolved questions in science.

But the fact is the abiogenesis hypothesis is an active area of research in which tests under laboratory conditions have yielded fruitful results. We now know with virtual certainty that amino acids, peptides, and some of the precursor biomolecules for RNA can form out of prebiotic chemicals and energy. It's thought currently that RNA is the key for how prebiotic material evolved into primitive cells.

That is not yet an answer for how complex, self organizing cells were created. But we are acquiring information in that direction.

What cannot be tested by science is how the hand of God might have caused inert prebiotic chemicals to form biomolecules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top