The scientific "debate" behind intelligent design

Lawrence Krauss, Michael Lemonick and Peter Gleick talk about the scientific "debate" behind intelligent design and evolution.

Credit:
"The Role of Science: How to Identify and Counter Misuse and Abuse of Science"
Aspen Ideas Festival
07 Jul. 03, 2007

The Aspen Institute
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/

The full video can be found here:
http://fora.tv/2007/07/03/Role_of_Science

Related articles:
'Creation science' enters the race
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Lawrence
• Krauss
• Peter
• Gleick
• Michael
• Lemonick
• Aspen
• Institute
• debate
• Intelligent
• design
• the
• discovery
• institute
• atheism
• atheist
• creationism
• evolution
• peer
• review
• science

[thepalebludot]

@ZachRose88 wtf u live near it?

[ZachRose88]

Ugh. I want to burn down the Discovery Institute every time I walk by it. It's amazing they can have such a center of ignorance and bronze age myth right in the middle of downtown. If I wasn't a rational person I would do something very irrational to their building. lol

[Texmurphy51]

@Kabitu1 "By your definition, would science be counted as a religion"

No because Science does not claim the "know" the results. Science is simply data, the interpretation of this data is what counts.

"a religion that embraces scepticism and critical thought"

Really? Atheists who Believe in No God are not sceptical but hard bound in their Beliefs.

No proof will change their minds any more than Theists. Thats Religion.

Creation of our Universe could have been from an intelligent being(s)

[Kabitu1]

@Texmurphy51 By your definition, would science be counted as a religion? If atheism is a religion, it is certainly one of a different breed than anything seen before; a religion that embraces scepticism and critical thought.

By creation, are you implying the action of something self-aware? If not, I agree.

[Texmurphy51]

@Kabitu1 "examination of the god claim always leads to the conclusion that no proper evidence exists"

That is true of many hypothesis

First I dont talk of man made personal gods,(conventional religion). I am speaking of the possibility of creation.

How our universe was created may or may not be unknowable but it is unknown.

I contend that Organized Atheism has become a Religion because of its Belief System.

It has all the qualifications for a No God Religion like Buddism.

[Kabitu1]

@Texmurphy51 Agnosticism is the view that knowledge about some topic is impossible to gain. It is the view that something is essentially unknowable.

I agree that there are just like ignorant christians ignorant atheists, who refuses to even consider the possibility of a god. But it is my experience that a deep examination of the god claim always leads to the conclusion that no proper evidence exists.

And I would be satisfied by a statistical effectivity of prayer, for instance.

[Texmurphy51]

@Kabitu1 " It is the natural rejection of a claim that the person feels there is no reason to believe"

Thats Agnosticism. Atheism is a Belief in No God.

Atheism Believes the claim that there is No Possibility of a Creator without proper evidence.

Evidence is presented but NON will satisify the Atheist, All is rejected withouth examination.

It is like rejecting the hypothesis of dark matter/energy because there is no evidence.

[Kabitu1]

@Texmurphy51 Atheism is not a religion. It is the natural rejection of a claim that the person feels there is no reason to believe.

Religion is the opposite. It is the action of believing a claim without having proper evidence to support it.

[Fand421]

Check out the video called Ken Miller on Intelligent Design if you would like to learn a great deal about this debate from the point of view of a scientist.