"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

Cypress said:
That sounds right.

ID obviously doesn't remotely pass muster as a scientific theory or hypothesis.

But there's nothing wrong in principle with believing that physics and mathematical organization is a manifestation of a higher reality that our simian brains cannot access.

The Enlightenment deists basically thought the laws of nature were written by God.

I kind of like how the Confucians and Daoist leave it deliberately vague. Li is the rational organizing principle of nature and the Dao is the natural way of the universe but the Dao can't be put into words because it is beyond human language.
Click to expand...

The Theory of Creation is a nonscientific theory, just like the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of the Continuum, or the Theory of Evolution (which states that 'higher' life forms evolved from 'lower' life forms).
NONE of these theories can be tested. It is simply not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened.

Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. They cannot be tested. ALL of these theories has evidence supporting them. Evidence, however, is not a proof.

Science is completely atheistic. It does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. It does not care whether a nonscientific theory is True or not. It simply doesn't go there.
Science has no politics. It does not use consensus, licenses, certifications, degrees, or any other form of sanctification. It is not any government or government agency. It is not any academy, journal, magazine, paper, website, study, university, or research.

Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. That's it. That's all.

For a theory to be falsifiable, it must be testable, using a specific test of the theory itself, and producing a specific result. As long as the theory can withstand such tests, it remains a theory of science and is automatically part of the body of science. It needs no vote. It needs no 'blessing'. It needs no sanctification. It needs no 'graduation'.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
The Theory of Creation is a nonscientific theory, just like the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of the Continuum, or the Theory of Evolution (which states that 'higher' life forms evolved from 'lower' life forms).
NONE of these theories can be tested. It is simply not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened.

Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. They cannot be tested. ALL of these theories has evidence supporting them. Evidence, however, is not a proof.
Click to expand...

You can observe strata and fossils, dumbass.
 
Into the Night said:
Yes there is. The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life arrived on Earth through a series of random unspecified events.
It is not a theory of science.
Click to expand...

You have entered a paradox.

1) There is Theory of Abiogenesis.
2) The Theory of Abiogenesis is not a theory of science.

Which one is it, dude?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top