What Science Isn't

Nonfalsifiable theories of creation, the *ugh* Intelligent Design movement and its political motivations, and examples of What Science Isn't.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheist
• atheism
• religion
• science
• theism
• intelligent
• design
• Flying
• Spaghetti
• Monster
• albert
• albert10110

[EpiDot52]

Isn't creative design just another wierder word for darwinism? We are obviously designed seeing as nothing lacks a design and it could be construed as intelligent or at least superior.

[Albert10110]

EpiDot52 - Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker goes into this exact question: how could living organisms that seem to have design be created through natural processes.

[EpiDot52]

no no. I'm saying that we were created by natural processes (I agree) but we are designed and that design was superior to other designs (natural selection) therefore they could be considered intelligent design

[Albert10110]

EpiDot52 - Uh, sure. If you redefine "intelligent design" to mean the exact opposite of its intended meaning then that would be true. Although you would confuse the term "intelligent" with a natural process that has no intent, motivation, or reasoning capability.

[crazyquads]

//Rabbit fossils in the Precambrian would merely change the way biologists draw their tree of life. //

I disagree. If a fossil for an animal that previously appeared only in the recent fossil record popped up in Precambrian rock, scientists would be hard pressed to fit it into the current evolutionary tree. It would certainly be a start in falsifying evolutionary theory.

[melancholyid]

I'm assuming by "Darwinism", you meant evolution as a whole.

Evolution is falsifiable. Hypothetically, you could falsify it by finding an example of a modern organism that evolution predicts evolved from a prior organism, existing in an era before its supposed ancestor. Like finding a pelican skeleton in a layer of strata dated before the arrival of archaeopteryx.

You could also map the genetics of a creature living today, whose genes don't lend themselves to coming from prior organisms.

[jellywillreturn]

Science isn't about "why", it's about "why are you allowed to live".

[arecuk1]

Belief in a God or Creator has nothing to do with science so your statement makes no sense. Have you ever read a bible. You sound like you try to over think creationism or believe in a supernatural creator. For someone who sounds so smart you have little understanding about faith. Belief in people evolving from a lower form of life is just that a belief. I get so tired of people who dismiss God because there is no proof from their point of view, but you choose not to accept the idea of God.

[grendelee]

@berrytc44 well, ill help you out here. There is no "darwanism" for one, just the theory of evolution, which is true. Also, the theory of evolution does not cover, mention, or attempt to explain how lifing things came from non-living matter. If it rained frogs for no reason millions of years ago, they would still evolve. Its a fact.