Why Intelligent Design Fails as a Science: Part 1

[dlcoherence]

I don't see too many private sector pharmaceutical drug companies basing their research on evolutionary biology....only government funded labs do so. Follow the money!

[AstronomyGuru84]

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Douglas Adams - One of my favorite quotes.

[elfy99803]

2:48 That's a lie, look at the "million year old" fish that was "extict" the coalacanth. They are alive and apperantly they went extinct millions of years ago. They have not evolved since fossils were found, was the theory discarted? no. Disproves evolution? Yes.

[Greyclouds40]

@elfy99803 That is not correct. If the environment that an organism lives in selects for traits that it already has, it is not predicted to gain new traits. This is called "stabilizing selection."

Consider too that there ARE diverse variants of Coelacanths in the fossil record!

Evolution has not been disproven by the existence of living Coelacanths. Now, if you found out that the Coelacanth has only accumulated detrimental traits over time within its environment, THEN evolution is in trouble!

[Olasqy]

This feels more like an attack than an informative video. The pictures are offensive. When one side attacks another it makes itself look bad. This applies for evolutionist and creationist. These videos merely slander evolution.

[Olasqy]

So neither side can truely be proven? Someone help me out here

[biggingeryeti]

@Olasqy Let me put it this way, if you had a jigsaw and had 90% of the pieces in place and it looked like a tiger. A bit of the face and tail are missing but it looks like a tiger. You then look at the box and the box shows that it is a tiger. So you have constructed a general picture that looks like a tiger and have observed that it is a tiger as shown on the box. Now let's say you can't find the final pieces of the jigsaw. Can you still say that the jigsaw is a tiger? Science says that yes

[biggingeryeti]

Respond to this video... you can indeed call it a tiger. The majority of the pieces show it to be a tiger and the box shows it as a tiger, the logical conclusion is that it's a tiger. What intelligent design does is then go, well you didn't see how it was made and can't prove it is definitely a tiger, the pieces go together because god designed it to look that way, so that must mean that it could be a picture of god. Get it?

[PureSniperWolf]

So basically if people don't believe what you believe then you'll put Evolutionist-Approved earplugs in and close your eyes and refuse to hear what anyone else says? Interesting. Religion is more about the "why" of it all than the "how". Science is supposed to answer "how", not "why". Why does it actually matter if someone thinks things were created by an intelligent power however long ago (no one's alive to tell us how long that was) or if random things happened and here we are on the web?

[thestapler3]

Love all your videos and would love to see more. I see everything exactly the same!

[jjtheslayer69]

this guy had to go to college to get this smart,, but ive been like this since i was five

[HellspawnICX]

"it looks like something smart made that... I knew it! Jesus is real!" <--Lol, people actually believe that way. 

[MrIntelligentdesign]

How can you differentiate an object if it is intelligently designed or naturally made?

[ganados0]

We go to heaven and find a higher power

"Wait your real? did you create everything?"

"Yep - with a few too many Brewski's."

[grfield1]

@AlessioDAlessandro Yes there r some assumptions on both sides for example similar design infers a common designer. Can't be proven. One has to decide which assumptions r reasonable and how many r acceptable to come up with a cumulative case for a solution. For myself the evidence for creation smokes that of evolution. Check out John Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the Genome

[grfield1]

@all ID theory is science of the natural world that comes to the conclusion of the intelligent cause of life. It may have religious implications but it is a theory which explains the natural world in the present.

[grfield1]

Starting from an assumption....you just described the belief in evolution! Interpreting evidence or facts based on assumptions.

[alawrence89]

@grfield1 What are those assumptions, specifically?

[grfield1]

@alawrence89 there are lots of assumptions here one that stands out is that similarity means similar ancestor. If they ever found evidence that evolution was wrong as a whole they would simply incorporate that evidence to further the theory. Like Trex blood proteins. Miraculous how the proteins managed to survive for 65 million years. This clip equates gravity theory and such on equal footing with evolution theory which is crap. Evolution cannot be tested, observed and repeated in the present

[SidewaysGts]

I seriously hope you continue these videos.

[FiverBeyond]

An excellent video... that's such a very important point that surprisingly elludes people: if no evidence can be found against your explanation, this is the same as saying that no evidence can be found supporting your explanation either.