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

[Sunstone]

Why would anyone think Intelligent Design and/or Creationism were science?

[Bouncing Ball]

Well, whenever we create AI-programs or robots it's stuffed with science. Maybe God created us as we create robots


Ehr, that's really all I could think of though...

[doppelgänger]

Change the definition of "science."

[Francine]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Change the definition of "science."

Creationists/IDers never go out into the field and gather data, they are just Monday morning quarterbacks who offer up critiques of what they consider deficiencies in the current science.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Why would anyone think Intelligent Design and/or Creationism were science?

Suckers.

[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 !

[camanintx]

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

If we don't know why universal constants have the values they do, how exactly does the Strong Anthropic Principle support Intelligent Design? Why couldn't there be some fundamental natural law that forces these constants to have the values they do?

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Change the definition of "science."

That is the only way I see it happening.

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Darwinism is on its LAST LEGS !

I wish I had a penny for every time I have heard this.

[Lindsey-Loo]

Part of science is asking "Why?" questions and then formulating an opinion to answer it. Then you have to back-up your opinion with proof to evolve into a hypothesis and perhaps a theory. 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?

I think we also need to ask "What is science?". How do you define science?