"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

PostmodernProphet said:
there is nothing in science that says testing apples is an experiment in oranges, yet here you are comparing them......go ahead and pretend there is testing for abiogenesis if you wish......however I will continue to mock your ignorance......
Click to expand...

It's not apples and oranges. Creating amino acids, peptides, and RNA precursors is directly relevant to abiogenesis research

Origin of life and the abiogenesis hypothesis has been a legitimate field of scientific research for 80 years..

It took decades of research and tests to confirm black holes, the Higgs boson, and electromagnetism.

You seem to be under the impression that if one single test cannot once and for all time show a cell grow in situ from inert chemicals in a test tube, then the science is not testable.

Failed tests are part and parcel of the scientific method. It's called the null hypothesis, and they are just as important as tests that reject the null hypothesis.

It might be the case that someday we will have to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that we cannot grow in situ cells in a test tube from inert prebiotic material. In that case, we will have to completely rethink the abiogenesis hypothesis.

But the fact that current origin of life research is providing fruitful results on peptides and RNA suggests we are on the right track.
 
Yakuda said:
Whether or not your partial to anthro centric words is irrelevant to their accuracy. No one in their right mind finds a watch and thinks it's presence is explained by chance or again, it's a watch because it always been a watch. To suggest such a thing is to slap reason in the face.
Click to expand...

A watch can not reproduce.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It is erroneous to entirely dismiss intelligent design as a concept. By doing so, you are committing a McNamara fallacy. You are saying intelligent design cannot be occurring or exist because you can't measure or observe it. That doesn't mean it isn't happening, only that you haven't got the means to recognize it is, if it is.
Click to expand...

Again, ID is not necessary in the theory of evolution.
 
Cypress said:
It's not apples and oranges. Creating amino acids, peptides, and RNA precursors is directly relevant to abiogenesis research
Origin of life and the abiogenesis hypothesis has been a legitimate field of scientific research for 80 years..
Click to expand...
It is not science. The Theory of Abiogenesis is a nonscientific theory. Science has NO theories about past unobserved events.
Cypress said:
It took decades of research and tests to confirm black holes, the Higgs boson, and electromagnetism.
Click to expand...
An object is not a theory of science.
Cypress said:
You seem to be under the impression that if one single test cannot once and for all time show a cell grow in situ from inert chemicals in a test tube, then the science is not testable.
Click to expand...
If you manage to create a cell in a test tube, that confirms CREATION, not Abiogenesis.
Cypress said:
Failed tests are part and parcel of the scientific method.
Click to expand...
Science isn't a method.
Cypress said:
It's called the null hypothesis, and they are just as important as tests that reject the null hypothesis.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to prove any theory True. It is not possible to prove Abiogenesis False. The Theory of Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. It is not a theory of science.
Cypress said:
It might be the case that someday we will have to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that we cannot grow in situ cells in a test tube from inert prebiotic material. In that case, we will have to completely rethink the abiogenesis hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Not possible.
Cypress said:
But the fact that current origin of life research is providing fruitful results on peptides and RNA suggests we are on the right track.
Click to expand...
If you can create a cell in a test tube, that confirms CREATION, not abiogenesis.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Evolution has been literally observed in fast evolving species like fruit flies.
It's accepted fact more than theory.
Click to expand...
I don't think something has to be a theory to be taught in a science class. Even just a hypothesis, or even a compelling scientific idea could be discussed.

The qualifying characteristics is they can't invoke the supernatural, and they have to have a mathematical or physical basis and they have to be make predictions l, at least in principle.

String theory isn't even really a theory, its more of just an idea. But it has a self consistent mathmatical framework which might be testable at some point if we ever have particle accelerators capable of sufficiently high energies.

Cosmic inflation is basically just an idea or hypothesis that seems to quantitatively explain the geometry and flatness of the universe, but so far there is no known way to test the predictions.

At one point, black holes were little more than an educated guess, and it took decades of research to confirm the hypothesis.

I think it's perfectly fine to discuss cutting edge scientific ideas, speculations, and hypotheses in science education. That's really the life blood of science. The theories are just the end result.
 
Cypress said:
Origin of life and the abiogenesis hypothesis has been a legitimate field of scientific research for 80 years..
Click to expand...

and they've discovered nothing that comes within a million miles of creating life in that time.....but you are right.......its not comparing apples and oranges........its comparing citric acid and a grove of growing orange trees......
 
Cypress said:
Even just a hypothesis, or even a compelling scientific idea could be discussed.
Click to expand...

then you need something to distinguish which ideas are scientific........previously it has always been hypotheses (or ideas) which can be tested in the scientific manner.......why change?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and they've discovered nothing that comes within a million miles of creating life in that time.....but you are right.......its not comparing apples and oranges........its comparing citric acid and a grove of growing orange trees......
Click to expand...

Here's is where you are utterly confused

Abiogenesis doesn't simply refer to a fully developed prokaryotic cell.

It refers to the process by which life emerges from nonlife.

That process can be tested, as evidenced by the creation of amino acids, peptides, and RNA precursors from prebiotic material under laboratory conditions.
 
Cypress said:
Here's is where you are utterly confused

Abiogenesis doesn't simply refer to a fully developed prokaryotic cell.

It refers to the process by which life emerges from nonlife.

That process can be tested, as evidenced by the creation of amino acids, peptides, and RNA precursors from prebiotic material under laboratory conditions.
Click to expand...

I concur.....the issue is the process, not the existence of organic chemicals.......science has fully established the existence of amino acids, peptides, even RNA.......there have been NO tests of the process of life emerging from those organic chemicals.........

I can recall several tests that involved removing organic chemicals from a living organism, altering it and reinserting it in the living organism, thus creating a new living organism.........some even claimed science had thus created "life"......not true of course, but isn't that actually scientific experimentation in intelligent design?.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top