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

[OMGelka]

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

Link me any of this evidence. I Reject the argumental value of this point, pending some sort of respectable reference for your claim, on the grounds that up until what must be quite shortly before you made that claim, the general consensus among the physics community is that the universe came about in a big bang, with no evidential reason to assume that some sort of deity caused it to happen.

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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...

Semantics of Popper's qualifications for an idea to reach the status of a hypothesis aside, ID breaks the basic tenet that a hypothesis must provide a solution to a problem.
God can be anything, a rat in your basement, some oxygen molecules in the air, a random floating asteroid, the sun, a big guy with a beard chilling outside of the universe.
In other words "It could be anything" is just as viable of a hypothesis as "it could be god"
ID/creationism is not a theory because it cannot be tested in anyway, nothing can prove it, it can be indirectly classified as useless(IE Evolution removes the need for it, new research on the nature of time may remove any need to think that the universe was created, etc) but cannot be directly disproven.

It's not a hypothesis because it can't provide a solution to the problem it wishes to solve(Remember, saying "Well, SOMETHING makes it work this way" is the same thing as saying "dunno, could be anything")
I'm not a biologist. in fact, I'm in a special ed division of my high-school that doesn't have any classes pertaining to science other than algebra, which is a mathematical language for everything that can be tested, so i can't point out flaws in any detailed sense on your perceived notion of the nature of evolution. Not that i could anyways, since all you said was "evolution is stupid, ur stupid if u think its reel".

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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

I refer you to my first point, because this is contrary to what was popular belief among the physics community when i checked last week.
So i ask you to give me a credible reference, being that you're the one here making the extraordinary claim without any elaboration.

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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

On the contrary, i have yet to be met with any biological situation where evolution hasn't managed perform in a stellar fashion. every argument I've heard, from the bombardier beetle, to the monarch butterfly have been shot down with the elegance that only rigorous scientific analysis can achieve.
Furthermore, a common philosophical misconception among creationists, is that if you prove that one thing is wrong with a theory that covers, say two thing, then both must be wrong. in fact, only that which was dis-proven would be wrong, the other of the two still holds, and would be a necessary aspect of any theory which is to replace it.
In other words, you have to disprove all of evolution, not just point out an inconsistency in what we think is the case with one of millions of species we have to research, otherwise we have no reason to think it didn't just evolve in a different way than we originally thought. you have to show how evolution in general would be impossible, which won't come about by getting a ph.d in biology and pointing out a mistake, that should simply be updated.

Originally Posted by I Panicked! At the Disco

What is science? How do we define science?

Everything is science, and science is everything. Anything in the universe can be approached scientifically, from why trees are green, why you feel anger, hate, and love, to why we are here.

"What is the scientific method" would probably have yielded you the type of response you seek.
However, I've much more to post, and don't have the time to write you a book on the subject, nor do i feel I'm qualified to assert to you the arbitrary standards of the scientific method, nor do i feel it to be appropriate to be summarized into a few paragraphs to simply be left open to interpretation.

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.

This isn't the case, at all. For most argumental intents and purposes, they are the same.
They both base their assertions on the idea that some sort of deity set all the trains in motion, which is exactly the point to be argued. Complaining about how two ideas are commonly paired due to large similarities is not a productive way to promote said idea.

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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.

Care to elaborate on these "facts" because from what i hear, if the results are the same, and they employ the same postulates, they are the same thing, and we don't have much of a debate if creationism is evolution, now do we?
Your other point is fallacious, it assumes that if A is wrong, then B is automatically right, regardless of what C, D, X, Y, and Z have to say about it.
In other words, ID is not validated to any extent if you manage find an inconsistencey with the current theory of evolution.

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. The aggressiveness on the part of biologists we see towards the Sheldrakes and others is a kind of defense, as in the best defense is a good offense.

Nothing here is elaborated, its just a bunch of empty claims, you provide no line of reasoning on why anything you just said is true to any extent. I can erase the former sentence in this response, and replace it with nothing but "nuh uh", and we would be on equal ground in this debate.

In other words, please provide a credible reference for your claims, or provide a reason as to why they should hold any ground. for instance, what do you know about "the physics behind biology" that is somehow, such a large detriment to the theory of evolution, that it would override the enormous amount of observable evidence we've come across thus far.(and no, i'm not linking you references to a 10 year college degree's worth of observable evidence, when the burden of proof is on you, the one making the extraordinary claim.)

[Soldano16]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

Well, it is the stronger form of the two principles

Not at all. The first is logical, the second is pure speculation.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's "strong" in terms of the implications of the claim, not in terms of the evidence for it.

Originally Posted by SonOfNun

Wow, yours is a very ignorant claim. In order to lie one has to know the the truth and chose to pervert it.

Which many of the people behind the ID movement do. I don't think anyone's arguing that ID adherents without a good knowledge of science are liars - they're just going on what they believe.

Originally Posted by SonOfNun

As a Christian, science is not the answer to everything. It is an ends to a means, not the ends in and of its self. The way we judge and observe things differ from the way you observe and judge things. I will except the title of ignorant, but of a lier, no. I firmly believe in creation. So if I am not telling the truth, it is not a lie, but ignorance.

I strongly feel that if a person claims that ID is true, then he or she is either a liar or has been duped by lies. That being said, I have no reason to believe that you are lying.

I believe that the founders and leaders of the Intelligent Design movement have knowingly built their cause on a stack of lies. However, I believe that most of the adherents of ID are victims of the scam, not perpetrators.

Originally Posted by SonOfNun

I will firmly hold this position until someone can give me a scientific explanation for the fact that the Bible is 100% correct on all its prophesies. How can someone living hundreds of years before Rome came to be know about crucification? How can there be a nation of Israel?

Prophesy? Really?

In my experience, the way that prophesy sets itself up lends itself to people claiming it's real and true, regardless of its accuracy. Every prophesy can either be matched up with a real event or not. The ones that can are trumpeted as "evidence" and are used to "score a point" in favour of the truth of the source; the ones that can't are explained away as describing future events, and therefore don't have to be "scored" as a point against the source.

It's all very convenient.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Soldano16

Not at all. The first is logical, the second is pure speculation.

Not logically, but in terms of claims. It makes a stronger claim, hence the name.