Expelled

[Women_Of_Reason]

I'm dead serious!

It insults them simply because, as said earlier, ID is nothing more than a bold claim masquerading as a scientific theory.

Moreover ID is nothing more than a refutation of the theory of evolution... Which is, guess what, part of the theory of evolution.

As a scientific theory, evolution is falsifiable i.e. if you can find a living creature that could not have evolved (irreducible complexity as ID calls it) evolution falls. This is not a new theory... It is an aspect that is already in the theory of natural selection. ID claimed to have found this irreducible complex creature which turned out not to be irreducible.

But again... Even if they had found it: Refuting proposition A does not imply that proposition B is true.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by roli

Are you serious? you think the deeper they look into the human cell and it's complexities the more they trust in science and not even contemplate ID,that's not what I find in research of many in the scientific community.Do the research!!!
Is that your personal bias view...?
The only thing they may very well fear are the insults they may face if they even mention out loud to their peers of the possibility of intelligent design.
You would have to know all things to make such an assumption about what they actually think.

That is are as far out of touch with reality as anything I've seen or heard in my lifetime.

I keep looking around, expecting to see Rod Serling talking into a camera.

[Autodidact]

roli: a modicum of grammar and punctuation would make your posts much easier to understand. Half the time I don't know what you're trying to say.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

I believe that our conscientiousness was a gift of God so that his creation would have the ability to explore, search and ultimately know and develop a loving relationship with their Creator.

I know you believe that. I don't, though. My problem only comes in when you assert that belief as more than belief. Also (just to clarify), it's "consciousness", not "conscientiousness". The latter is a completely different word.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by mball1297

I know you believe that. I don't, though. My problem only comes in when you assert that belief as more than belief. Also (just to clarify), it's "consciousness", not "conscientiousness". The latter is a completely different word.

Oops, my bad. I must have clicked the wrong word on my spell check.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Actually, science is used to explain this thing we call existence, not to create it.

But in saying that, we need to understand science in order to be able to create technologies that can "create".

[rojse]

Originally Posted by Women_Of_Reason

How is that a theory?

Because people have bastardised the original meaning of the word theory.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by Women_Of_Reason

Even if they had found it [proof that evolution did not exist]: Refuting proposition A does not imply that proposition B is true.

Most ID proponents neglect this assertation, unfortunately.

I would also like to add that ID would need to explain why evolution was so successful in explaining how different animal species came about.

[roli]

[quote=The Voice of Reason;1320605]That is are as far out of touch with reality as anything I've seen or heard in my lifetime.

quote]

And your reality is only in what you .....see!

What about the unseen and unknowns in your world.
What title do you place on them?