How Can ID/Creationism Be Science? (Darwin, evolution, God, verse)

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Creation science is good science...based on disspassionate/ objective mathematical evidence/ the best available probability calculations

Really? Care to explain how you managed to determine the range of possible constants which could have formed?

Anybody who claims probability supports either side (created by chance or not) is being purposefully obtuse and using probability theory in a way that it is not meant to be used.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

First, I just want to say that this has nothing to do with my theology.

ID and Creationism are not the same. Pundants who equate them are either deliberately misleading people or ignorant. ID uses the same facts as orthodox Darwinists and point to inconsistencies in the accepted theory. Having so much invested in the status quo, mainstream scientists simply don't want to hear it.

I disagree:

Kitzmiller v. Dover:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Source

JURIST - Gazette: 'Intelligent design' ruling [US DC]
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Dec20opinion.pdf
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

ID and Creationism are not the same. Pundants who equate them are either deliberately misleading people or ignorant. ID uses the same facts as orthodox Darwinists and point to inconsistencies in the accepted theory. Having so much invested in the status quo, mainstream scientists simply don't want to hear it.

You really should better acquaint yourself with both ID and Creationism. A good place to start would be a study of the Dover case. ID was clearly demonstrated to be thinly masked Creationism. The ID ruse didn't fool the Court. It would be a pity if it fooled you.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

More to the point, though, biologists are way behind when it comes to the the physics of biology. They understand the mechanics quite well, but they will be increasingly on the defense as long as the refuse to consider coherent fields of influence.

What is this?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Wake up and smell the coffee...Darwinism is on its LAST LEGS !

Which drugs will allow one to see the truth of your statement?

[kai]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

If science is about the search for truth? and if the vast preponderance of evidence, supports the hypothesis that the cosmos/ life couldn’t be a spontaneous event/ a product of blind chance?...then yes of course Creation science is good science...based on disspassionate/ objective mathematical evidence/ the best available probability calculations

And On the flip side.... those who look for weaknesses in Darwinism...and the only rational /logical alternative to this, is a purposeful creation/ intelligent evolution...must also be engaged in sound science

If this were not so , then Darwinism itself would NOT be science either, since for a theory to be considered scientific, as opposed to being just pseudoscience... it has to be falsify-able...based on Karl Popper’s strict definition of what constitutes a bonafide scientific hypothesis...

Scientific support for the Strong Anthropic Principle. Based on the best available data keeps growing by leaps and bounds...and so too by default, does the strength of the ID Hypothesis/ argument...which appears increasingly to be the only logical/ reasonable/ scientific explanation for the Universe’s apparently beneficent/ life nurturing properties

Wake up and smell the coffee...Darwinism is on its LAST LEGS !

spontaneous events ,blind chance ,these are words that have to used very carefully when ever you talk about life in the universe because of the vastness of it in size and the incredible lengths of time involved what is spontaneous about it when it took millions of years, and wheres the blind chance when you have millions of stars and planets to go along with it, seems like every chance to me

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by I Panicked! At the Disco

Part of science is asking "Why?" questions...

Science tends to be more concerned with "How" than "Why".

...and then formulating an opinion to answer it.

Actually, the object is formulate an hypothesis. An hypothesis differs from an opinion in several ways. Perhaps most importantly, a hypothesis is testable. Not all opinions are testable.

Then you have to back-up your opinion with proof...

Not proof. Evidence.

Don't evolutionists and creationists alike ask how we came to be, then come up with an answer, then try to back up their answer?

No. Creationists merely try to discredit science in the hopes that by doing so they will hoodwink some people into believing the logical alternative to science is Creationism. Creationists are notorious for doing little or no research of their own.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

What is this?

English biologist Rupert Sheldrake posits what he calls "morphic fields," coherent fields of information that influence everything from cell growth to galaxies. He believes that something is needed to explain things like why crystals that are difficult to grow in a lab get easier to grow over time, or how a learned behavior of birds interrupted by war is somehow instinctive to later generations, or how it is that rats seem to somehow pick up how to run a maze learned by unrelated rats an ocean away.

What I'm saying is that there's a hellava lot of information that has yet to be correlated into a coherent whole and biologists are stuck in a materialistic rut.