Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

You don't HONESTLY expect him to think about that do you? After all this time? Asking questions like that are just invitations for more recursion that is part of the clearly delineated strategy of deceit by the enemies of science.

I.D.
Phase I: Pose as science, write some half-ass papers
Phase II: Enlist the help of people with credentials
Phase III: Use the gains of phase II to force professionals to respond to you, thus giving you faux legitimacy.


Bad rap
Phase I: Practice your gangsta pose, record a half-ass demo
Phase II: Get a posse.
Phase III: Call out a veteran rapper and hope that they respond so that you will look legit enough to get a producer and a contract.


Cuz damn, if they dissin you back then you must be official!

The people who came up with the modern incarnation of ID would disagree with you. Since God is their designer (they have said so), it is not applicable for humans to create 'life'. As such that would falsify their 'theory' and by extension, God, so they would denounce such 'life' as nonlife.

Further I suggest you stop speaking about abiogenesis without further grounding in chemistry and microbiology. It will take the rest of us weeks to explain it to you because inevitably you will wind up ignoring some of us as we lose patience.

Since I get the impression you are religious, is it not akin to questioning your Faith to seek to further define your creator's realm? Wherein vagueries have sufficed for millenia, you choose to limit it's role and power by saying just what is and what it is not capable of. I've certainly seen many people who seem to think their particular god even participates in their lives on a daily basis. So does your faith just end at creation or what? Like there's god over here in evolution and creation, but not over here in my breakfast and computer?

1. I'm not concerned with the beliefs of people who agree with ID. There is no modern version that I know of. There are many variations on the theory.

2. Man creating life wouldn't falsify any of the theories of ID that I know of either.

3. The typical statement of evolutionists who can't debate is "I suggest you stop speaking about abiogenesis without further grounding in chemistry and microbiology." What about chemistry and microbiology would support the "theory" of abiogenesis? Biogenesis is the scientific fact life comes from life. Do you know of a mechanism found within nature for abiogenesis? If not, I would suggest it is you who needs to study chemistry and microbiology, because nothing found in either supports abiogenesis.

4. My beliefs are not at issue, I readily admit my beliefs are beliefs. It's those who insist abiogenesis is science who refuse to admit it is a belief. I don't deny your right to believe what you will, I just think it's a delusion to accept as fact those things which are clearly untestable.

Finally, if it can't be falsified due to lack of possible tests, it isn't science. If ID isn't science because it can't be tested, abiogenesis isn't science, but rather a myth for humanists.

Is god so omnipotent that she could create troll food that even she'd not be able to palate?

Seriously? I thought the whole thing boiled down to "where did man come from?"

/me wanders off for the ibuprofen.

It boils down to "how did life originate?"

So if man created life, who created man? I guess you don't see the great irony in your statement.

Unless you buy the "irreducibly complex" argument

No, actually thats a typical statement from someone who has tried to patiently explain the evidence to you but has been continually ignored.

Have you been reading this thread at all? For a realtively clear explanation of one theory check the link that Chance posted a couple of replies back.


Theories about abiogenesis are being tested.

No matter what one believes about irreducibly complex, man, using intelligence to create life wouldn't disprove Intelligent Design.

Anyone who debates by stating "if only you were as smart as I am concerning these matters you would agree with me" isn't debating at all. If one is being ignored, why would they post such a thing? Is it in hopes that statement would convince the one ignoring the poster to change his mind?

I haven't seen any of Chance's posts since he became personal. He may have valid points, but I will not see them. If you saw something within his posts that show how abiogenesis is tested, feel free to post it.

Currently, there are no tests that could falsify abiogenesis listed in your posts.

That's true, but it will be a moot point if science manages to replicate it in the lab (something which will never be possible with ID).

How can man replicate it? To replicate it, it would have to be done without man's assistance in any way. If it takes intelligence, even to set the conditions, it will not support abiogenesis without the need for a designer.

Simple. All that would need to happen is to show that life can form by itself when the right conditions are met.

As I stated, it would depend on which theory of ID you were talking about. In its basic form of "god created it", then no, it is impossible to falsify it, which is why it's not science.
However, some who are trying to create a 'scientific' version of ID use the irreducibly complex argument. This theory would be testable, since reproducing the creation of life from non-life would show that it is not irreducibly complex. However, those theories fail as science for other reasons.

No, its not a debate. But since the debate had ended long before then, I don't see it as a problem.
Person one makes a statement.
Person two refutes the statment.
Person one ignores the refutation and restates original claim.
Person two refutes the same statement again and tries to elaborate to make things clearer.
Person one ignores this too and makes the first statement again.

This is also not a debate, but will convince person two and observers of some things, although not about the debate topic.


This is a nice, relatively non-techincal article discussing one theory of the origin of life. It also has some background on other theories of the origin of life on earth. As you can see, many theories of abiogenesis have already been tested and falsified, which leads to more and better theories, which are also being tested.

That wouldn't do. The conditions being right would suggest intelligence prepared conditions.

Also, if such testing could falsify ID, then ID would be considered science that is waiting to be falsified.

If the right conditions correspond to the conditions existing on the early earth, then it would not require an intellegence to prepare it. Can you really not extrapolate to that point?

The quest for street cred continues.

I disagree. The conditions of early Earth being perfect to begin life would suggest intelligence set it up, in the same way men would do to reproduce it.

And thus Kevn shows us once again that it will never matter what science is able to prove. If it doesn't involve god, he and his ilk will reject it, deny it, and make up excuses why it somehow doesn't count. You can't reason with religious fundamentalists. They are beyond reason.

If ID is falsifiable, it is science. And since you say it is falsifiable, why do you object to it being included in science classes?

Then why do you continue? It only increases the possibility that passersby will think the person has something legitimate to argue when they aren't interested even in arguing.

You have some serious reading comprehension issues. Please show me where I said that ID is falsifiable. It's no more falsifiable than the theory that giant pink invisible unicorns live in the center of the earth.

Oh well. I tried. Maybe I should change my tag line to Sisyphus.

Thanks mom.

Would that mean the troll changes his name to rock? Or is it boulder...