Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

When asked to define the variation of ID that you are discussing, you said:

or have you changed your definition? or are you suggesting that man created the first life?

Except all the examples we've already given in this thread, not to mention the ones we haven't since that wouldn't be fair.
Remember when I said:


But note that if the creator is a life form, then it can not be the creator of the first life form. This means that for ID to hold true the creator must not be a life form.

Science deals in proving things wrong, not right. Let's use your example of "Conduct an experiment. If the experiment agrees with the theory you've just proved that under the conditions of your the experiment the theory holds true."

You haven't proven the the theory holds true every time you try, even under the same conditions. Unless you are God, and know what is in the future (or past), you can't assume the experiment will always result in that same way. The example was given.... a theory says all swans are white, and every swan you have seen is white. No one has seen a swan that isn't white, yet that doesn't make it so. If a black swan is ever found, the theory will be falsified. The point is, science never seek to prove something correct or true. Scientific facts don't assume to be certain. It's the best we have, until new, better data is found. The process never ends. New, better data is always in the future.

At least you admit it in the last paragraph, that you really mean science can't absolutely prove anything. The fact I didn't say "absolute" makes no difference to my point. Proof of something is understood to be certain. Example: "I have proof Danny was here, his fingerprints are on the doorknob".

Der.

I haven't change my point, I said creator. That could be anything. It might be a flesh being from another time/space/reality, aliens, or a being that doesn't require flesh, or any other possible creative being in forms I can't imagine due to my lack of imagination.

When talking of abiogenesis, we are talking of life on this Earth. Not life anywhere else. ID doesn't insist the creator be divine, in fact, it could be a group, or even a race of people from other places. Where they came from isn't the question, because the point isn't to prove there is a God. The point is to advance our understanding of what we are, so we can continue to develop.

Except that Danny's hand could have been cut off and pressed against the knob or the doorknob could have touched at a different location by Danny and then installed at that location to frame him.

You're still confusing scientific proof with absolutes (which belongs with religion and leprechauns). The two are exclusive. Zuzu is still correct. The only reason you believe proof means "certainty" is because you don't believe in science.

Relativity, look it up.

In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue. Consider the example of the white swans discussed earlier. One could search the world and see only white swans, and arrive at the generalization that "all swans are white. " However, the discovery of one black swan has the potential to overturn, or at least result in modifications of, this proposed law of nature.

Instead of having a big freaking debate over creation and if science is right and creation is wrong or vice versa lets use political correctness to make everyone happy....

In the beginning Gods and Goddessess used science to create the Heavens, the Earth and all that was in it. They created man in their image to use science. They got lazy and stopped helping man fix his mistakes and forsaked everything leaving man to his whims and science. All the Gods and Goddesses then killed themselves with science so man would not bug them no more. Now because mankind was created in the Gods and Goddessess image they shall commit suicide with science. The End.

In actuality, the swan example fails as a model for science in that it has no controls or hypothesis testable using the scientific method. At best it is an anecdote posing as science, meant to mislead casual readers into accepting misrepresentation as truth.

What kind of pervert comes into a discussion forum, pontificates plenty, discusses nothing, dismisses every single attempt to respond reasonably to his interlocutors, experiences the mocking derision of absolutely everyone, changes topics more frequently than most use a lavatory, sways absolutely no one, and still keeps at it after 370 posts?

Does belief in ID cause one to become a masochist? Or has god told him this is his penance for excessive masturbation? Or does he think he is headed for divine martyrdom instead of simply more ridicule?

The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (197 and Lopnshinsky (1993).

Oh good, now he wants an education in confirmation theory too? And he's been such an devoted and apt pupil so far.

No, it means a divinity created life. Anything else is circular. God, Father of Jesus isn't required.



Conceptually, agreed. As I have said about 10 hojillion times in this thread.



Divinity is exists outside of mudane causality. You can ask who created God, but the answer may be "God created himself". Or "God always was". There is no need for a creator of a divinity, wheras lowercase-ID, which doesn't involve divinity, needs a creator.

Skipping your summation because it's nothing new...



Ah, but it does. If the creator is not divine, the creator has to have a creator. Who had to have a creator. Who had to have a creator. At some point, you come down to one of two possibilities: Macroevolution and abiogenesis, or some *similar variation of the same basic concept, IE, life is a natural event*, or ID, or some similar variation, where life was created by a divinity outside of causality.



I think your arguement-train jumped my logic-tracks at somepoint there, because about the first half of that just made no sense when I compared it to anything I'd said before... Not sure if maybe you were responding to someone else...

One day a man named Kalvin was hired to work at the local healthfood grocer. A supply of exotic red bannanas just arrived and the assistant manager told him to stock the red ones up front because they were ripest and the green ones in back so they'd have time to ripen. After completing the task, the assistant manager inspected the display and noted that all of the bananas were mixed up. "What's the meaning of this?" he demanded.

"I'm color blind," answered Kalvin, "they're all just bananas to me."

There is an authorial device called "implication" that, when spelled out in italics, will help clarify things for people with selective retention.

Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true (in all circumstances ).


Which is why it is not a hallmark of religious fundamentalism, zealots cannot fathom new information. Which is why they cannot understand science.

I'm sorry if I don't respond. If I don't answer your post it may be I feel our discussion is not going to progress. If I ignored your posts, it was probably because I felt they were flaming, though I may just be thinned skinned. I'll turn it off after this thread, I don't hold a grudge

It's like Boolean logic without the 1's.

*By it I mean this "discussion." Just thought I'd clarify the implications : )

You continue to contradict yourself. Did you read my post? My response was to your "Myth 5"

I accept this a proof, as you do. However, even this is not absolute, since the fingerprint could have been placed there by someone else by perhaps taking a smudge of Danny's fingerprint and then transfering it to the doorknob. However, it's strong evidence and reasonable proof that Danny was here. The same sort of proof that science provides.

truly conclusive
breaks out a thesarus... ah, you mean Absolute

Can you prove this thread will, in fact, end?

Chemistry is an equally valid, yet unintelligent source of rules and data for proteins to combine and form dna. The volume of information contained in DNA makes a lot of sense when you consider the aggregate formation of both physics and chemistry rules. So abiogenesis might be able to explain the origin of life on other planets as it is consistent with all our other physical and biological sciences. ID, at the moment really adds nothing and detracts a good deal.

Now, what does all this have to do with the Vatican saying ID is not science?

Or... it goes backwards forever, turtles all the way down. I think this may be what Raelians (yet another variety of crackpot) believe, that we were created by some alien race, who were created by some other race, and so on backwards forever. And presumably the Big Bang didn't happen, or it was created, with the first alien race by some other alien race external to this universe. Or something. Presumably.

It is more likly that it occours wherever the right conditions are present, and we are living in an univrse where the physical laws rather enforce that life emerges as soon the conditions allow it.
Given the ammount of stars in the universe the chances that there are other worlds beside earth with life are higher than that there are not other planets with life.
Even one planet like erath per galaxy would be already pretty low estimate.


No, bacteria dont breath, they take in what they need directly, and they multiply by splitting, both very simple mechanisms


Science tells us it had to happen only once, and we can only witness it in a laboratory for the simple reason that as the world is now abiogenesis is not likly.

Chance plays only a minor role in it, comparable to fires, you dont know when it will burn in a city but no one will claim it will never burn, you simply dont know "when" but you are shure THAT it will burn, and if not this year then next year.

If you have a complete planet and a few billion years for something on molecular level to happen chances can be very low that it happens until we can assume that it is impossible.

If you play a few millions years lotto and use each round a few million tickets you can expect to win.

Have enough time and try it often enough and you will succed, and we need only one success <shrug>

So fusion energy is ID because it takes mans knowledge to let it happen?
Oh wait, the sun does it, and its questionable our sun has intelligence.

Only because it takes a human to have something happen on earth right now doesent means it needs a thinking mind behind it to happen elswhere.

I really dont get it.
I am rather an atheist but i could rather assume that an god exists who set up an universe with the big bang wich was perfectly geared from the start to run on self maintance and create the desired product than a god with a mechanics belt busy all the time to micromanage everyting or the whole thing comes down in pieces.

Really, would i be religious i would consider god really smart by setting up an universe where things WILL happen because the physical laws are geard that it WILL happen.

This is NOT scietific evidence that there is a god/creation force, if you have unlimited numbers of random universes one will happen to be ours as it is, but on an emotional level an "selfmaintaining" universe is ID, an recalibration heavy universe would be evidence of "Idiot Design"

There is one problem with that.
Observing stars beside the sun wich are know to be positioned behind the sun proves that gravity bends lightrays.
Observing misplaced Galaxies proves that massive objects bend light rays.
This is by the way how what Einstein postulated was proven and thus his theorem advanced to a theorie, because there was enough proof in his predictions to show that his ideas had at least enough working models to explain "how stuff happens"

What you are talking about is testing in science, repeating experiments others did to prove there ideas, if this test fails (the experiment repeats with the same result) the test failed and shows the idea a failure.

So to test the idea you repeat the experiments wich support the idea under the assumtpion there was a failure in the set up, if you are impolite you assume they where forged wich happens often enough, scientists are humans too.

And that is the reason ID will never make it, so faar no ID believer showed any form of experiment wich can be testet, this it is not science but bad religion and mainly geared at turning the world back into the dark ages where burning witches was perfectly logical.