I think there is a prediction inherent in the intelligent design hypothesis that fails...namely the that one will not see design features that are unintelligent. This prediction fails when we finds things like: a human vestigial tail, a useless and vulnerable human organ such as the appendix, optical nerves that needlessly impair vision by being in front of the retina rather than behind the retina, etc.
Not concerned if its labeled as science or not - it runs against our observations. Predictions, testability, uses, all stem from science fitting what we see of the real world. You can test natural history despite the fact that the evolution of one species or errosion of one mountain happened once - observations show what happened, if observations implied intelligent design, it would be as scientifically true as theories on how the dinosaurs died out (one time event). But no such evidence exists.
@unassumption Yes, I may have spoken too hastily at that point. Many ID people say this was a one time event that has exactly the same result as life arising naturally.
they can repair it - a lot of creationists believe in evolution - but in doing so they undermine the basis of their own but that belief is already ungrounded. Science doesn't need autonomy from other fields of inquiry, hypothesis just need to be based on evidence, not politics, and when religion is involved that's impossible. Christians think god is infinite AND infinitely simple - which he can be because he's a fictional character, not logically consistent.
@unassumption Actually, I believe that autonomy is to many an important criterion of scientificity. On this basis e.g. R&D can be said not to be truly science, because it serves solely bussiness interests.
it doesn't matter if its science or not - its biased! If there was evidence we wouldn't be able to tell because like i said biased. However even R and D provides instructions for repeating the experement, that non biased parties can try, these guys do not, because they have no experement, no prediction, no test - nothing to be observed in the world. To me It all boils down to ID not meshing with what we see outside our skulls.
@unassumption "To me It all boils down to ID not meshing with what we see outside our skulls." Yeah, this is right. I just wanted to explain other criteria as well to connect this topic to larger discussion on the demarcation.
nice video, going in my favorites :D
also I wonder why most ID advocates never mention Aliens as the designer
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
@LogicalThinker667 Well thanks! We cannot know ID folk think, they work in mysterious ways ;)
Vitoldian 11 months ago
I think there is a prediction inherent in the intelligent design hypothesis that fails...namely the that one will not see design features that are unintelligent. This prediction fails when we finds things like: a human vestigial tail, a useless and vulnerable human organ such as the appendix, optical nerves that needlessly impair vision by being in front of the retina rather than behind the retina, etc.
markdzima 11 months ago
@markdzima Oh, right! And platypus, we mustn't forget the platypus!
Vitoldian 11 months ago
Intelligent design= nothing really intelligent about it all. Just say "God did it!" and that's the answer!
supersmash43 11 months ago
@supersmash43 Well, at least they're good at mental gymnastics! All that reality twisting takes some real effort.
Vitoldian 11 months ago
@Vitoldian Christian apologetics would make VERY good politicians btw.
supersmash43 11 months ago
@supersmash43 God forbid! ;)
Vitoldian 11 months ago
" not that any sane person would suggest that." :):):)
macnutz 11 months ago
Not concerned if its labeled as science or not - it runs against our observations. Predictions, testability, uses, all stem from science fitting what we see of the real world. You can test natural history despite the fact that the evolution of one species or errosion of one mountain happened once - observations show what happened, if observations implied intelligent design, it would be as scientifically true as theories on how the dinosaurs died out (one time event). But no such evidence exists.
unassumption 11 months ago
@unassumption Yes, I may have spoken too hastily at that point. Many ID people say this was a one time event that has exactly the same result as life arising naturally.
Vitoldian 11 months ago
they can repair it - a lot of creationists believe in evolution - but in doing so they undermine the basis of their own but that belief is already ungrounded. Science doesn't need autonomy from other fields of inquiry, hypothesis just need to be based on evidence, not politics, and when religion is involved that's impossible. Christians think god is infinite AND infinitely simple - which he can be because he's a fictional character, not logically consistent.
unassumption 11 months ago
@unassumption Actually, I believe that autonomy is to many an important criterion of scientificity. On this basis e.g. R&D can be said not to be truly science, because it serves solely bussiness interests.
Vitoldian 11 months ago
@Vitoldian
it doesn't matter if its science or not - its biased! If there was evidence we wouldn't be able to tell because like i said biased. However even R and D provides instructions for repeating the experement, that non biased parties can try, these guys do not, because they have no experement, no prediction, no test - nothing to be observed in the world. To me It all boils down to ID not meshing with what we see outside our skulls.
unassumption 11 months ago
@unassumption "To me It all boils down to ID not meshing with what we see outside our skulls." Yeah, this is right. I just wanted to explain other criteria as well to connect this topic to larger discussion on the demarcation.
Vitoldian 11 months ago
@unassumption Okay, I may have not talked about consitency with reality at all. My bad!
Vitoldian 11 months ago