Please post arguments for why Intelligent Design is Science here

[Walt Starr]

I have yet to find a rational explanation as to why Intelligent Design should be considered as Science, so please, if you believe it to be, post the explanation as to how ID can be considered science here!

[Viking12]

1. Crickets Chirp ..........................................................

[9119495]

2. I eagerly await this one.

It cannot be science unless it can be DISproven. Would an IDer freely allow for the posibility or probability there was no ID? Even a scientist holds out for the possibility evolution may not be the truth. All scientists must allow for questioning. Therefore, only those things following the scientific method may be considered science. ID can't really be questioned--in fact many of the experiments are set up to validate the ideas.

[ProfessorPlum]

3. It's not science - it is a proof of God based on a lack of imagination

"I can't imagine how the biological world got to be so complex!! (because I have no understanding of the huge amount of time involved)! Therefore, there must be a God who created it!"

1. I lack imagination
therefore
2. There is a God
QED

[DrWeird]

4. Is this trip really necessary?

You know there are no valid arguments. I know there are no valid arguments. Anybody who doesn't have their head shoved so far up their ass they can kiss the back of their own teeth knows there are no valid arguments. So how can such a thread be anything but an exercise in futility?

[Walt Starr]

7. There's been so much uproar about this lately

I thought I'd put up a thread where the proponents of ID could put up. apparently they have chosen to shut up instead.

:shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

8. It's my fault!

I'm sorry... so very very sorry!... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'm sorry... so sorry!... I'm so very very sorry...



HAHA! I'm NOT sorry!



edit: I put him up to it. :D

[ChairOne]

5. LOL /eom

[toymachines]

6. a simple read through the dawkin's the blind watchmaker

should clear up any discrepancies with ID, how evolution works, and why it is a better theory. Its my favorite writing on the subject.

[Swamp Rat]

9. In the name of the "Hand that Guides," where are the ID defenders?

Tick tock tick tock...

[Walt Starr]

10. Crickets still chirping

:eyes:

[old blue]

11. Welp, according to the IDers on "Scarborough Country" last night,

it belongs in the science classroom because the vast majority of citizens believe in a higher power.

To this, there is a simple response: science is *not* a democratic process. Some people's "votes" *are* more valid than others'. If you want to know how the universe began, you don't take a poll on the street; you ask the folks who make a living conducting research on the subject.

If you don't agree with what they have to say, you don't have to believe it. But you also don't get to espouse your view and call it "science," unless and until you conduct your own experiments and submit your results to the rest of the scientific community for independent peer review. And oh yeah, you don't get to call your ideas a living scientific theory unless you can demonstrate that they explain existing data more elegantly than prior theories. Go for it!

[Walt Starr]

12. LOL, MSRNC uses the fallacy of Argumentum ad numerum or

Argumentum ad populum!

Morans (sic).

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

13. We get to VOTE on scientific results now?!?!

Shit, I wish we could have done that when I was taking high school physics. Maybe it would have raised my grade a few points.