Author Topic: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?  (Read 1613 times)

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Global Moderator
  • The Cure for Boredom is Curiosity. There is No Cure For Curiosity.
  • *****
  • Posts: 11789
  • Gender: Female
  • On The Warpath
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2012, 06:37:09 AM »
I have seen a lot of "fill in the gaps" arguments for creationism, but isn't it actually worse than that. From an unscientific perspective, what I have gathered is that is has had to move passed simply the filling in the gaps, and they actively defend it against actual scientific evidence. Don't they deny the existence of the fossils currently discovered?

No, they don't deny fossil evidence or even question carbon dating as much as the more primitive creationists do, IDers have evolved ;)

What they basically do is focus on the slightly less cohesive and known aspects such as the origin of life and DNA, which is not covered by evolutionary theory and hinge on god of the gaps and arguments from ignorance or incredulity to say: look at how complex this is, I'll throw you some numbers to show you that there's just no way this could've come about by chance (they still use and abuse this word).

The evolutionary process is being more left alone than it was by the more primitive creationists, except in the case of Behe's idea of the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum, who said that since the structure couldn't be made more simple without losing it's function, it the whole thing had to be designed in one go. Behe is a biologist but he was refuted by another (Ken Miller) who proved that before it was a flagellum it was a secreting structure, thus showing that it did evolve. 

IDers confuse DNA with the analogy they created for it, saying that it's like a software code...and we all know that software codes are specially and intentionally designed to perform specific functions. God would be the programmer. You would never find a way to test to see if this programmer exists, but they're still trying to push it as science.

SilverPhinx - that makes perfect sense.  Like most people, I don't know much about molecular biology (although I do know a bit about statistics) so a "scientist" could pretty much tell me anything in that area and I wouldn't know how to go about validating its accuracy or whether or not what they were saying made much sense without doing a bunch of research.  I can see how, if you don't know enough to disagree or spot the loopholes, AND what they are saying supports your existing worldview, it would seem compelling.

Me neither, I've just recently taken up my studies in biology again (and fighting creationism was a bit of a passion in my youth) , but knowledge isn't the most important thing (and ignorance can be remedied) but at least your critical thinking got you asking if it is indeed science ;D




These are the reasons I dislike IDers more than the simple Creationists. They distort the parts of evolutionary theory, physics, chemistry, and geology that they can't outright refute. They change definitions of everything from science itself to what constitutes life. They cherry pick things that can support their modified definitions of evolution and use those to hide behind their agenda, which simply leads back to the bible as ultimate source of truth.

In other words, they suck more!

  ;D

If you haven't already watched it, and find yourself with nothing better to do or have the urge to loose a few neurons, watch documentaries on the Dover Trial. One interesting part is when they cross questioned Michael Behe himself and he ended up twisting the definition of 'science' to even apply to things like astrology and numerology. Needless to say he didn't score points for his side with that, especially considering the context - their arguments for teaching ID in science classrooms were that ID is just as much science as physics, chemistry, biology...astrology ::)

It's all very odd because he's a trained biologist. ??? I wonder what went wrong for him to suddenly go all creationist. ??? 
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


Tank

  • Fed up with stupid.
  • Administrator
  • Excellent and Indefatigable Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 28670
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2012, 06:42:30 AM »

These are the reasons I dislike IDers more than the simple Creationists. They distort the parts of evolutionary theory, physics, chemistry, and geology that they can't outright refute. They change definitions of everything from science itself to what constitutes life. They cherry pick things that can support their modified definitions of evolution and use those to hide behind their agenda, which simply leads back to the bible as ultimate source of truth.

In other words, they suck more!

  ;D

LOL  I don't remember how this discussion got started, but in one of my college classes a Creationist/ID'er stood up and made some "moving" ( ::)) speech about how creationism/ID "is our science." and how those of us who believe in evolution "are clinging to our own religion".  About half of the class exploded in applause. I proved that I can be a dick if you catch me in the right mood by standing up and replying something along the lines of "Now I understand the problem!  Creationists obviously just have a couple of words mixed up in their head!  They think that their religion is science, and that science is religion.  Just switch those two words around, and I think we'll all agree...."  The other half of the room laughed.  The teacher yelled at me for not respecting my fellow students.  Good times.

*applauds lots and lots*
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett

ablprop

  • Has Received Bacon
  • *
  • Posts: 111
    • Turtle Universe
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2012, 02:28:46 PM »
I've wasted more time than I care to think about trying to convince creationists, intelligent designers, what have you, that evolution actually makes sense, that the world really is 13.7 billion years old, and all the rest. But David Deutsch gave an argument in The Beginning of Infinity that showed me how I'd been wasting my time.

Science, according to Deutsch, is the search for good explanations. A good explanation is one that fits all the known evidence and also, crucially, is hard to vary. Quite simply, supernatural explanations are always bad explanations because they are infinitely easy to vary. If they're not infinitely easy to vary, then they're not supernatural.

Squid

  • Guest
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2012, 05:38:30 PM »
The whole ID thing is actually pretty sneaky.  You present arguments that superficially seem to make sense, back that up with just enough "science" to dazzle the public at large and then you have "scientific" proof which supports the old religious frameworks.  The challenge is not having the empricial backing to show ID is incorrect or that evolutionary theory is well supported - the challenge is communicating the message to the public itself.  You can sit and talk about secretory systems and exaptation of flagella and most people will become disinterested within a few seconds.  The challenge to science literacy communication is having an adequate medium which is easily digested by the masses to the point of understanding.

ID starts with a basis that many people are already familiar with and indirectly associates itself with beliefs that many people hold as very personal.  To say that something like the eyeball is so complex that the only explanation is that some vague "designer" (a generic term which most people will nearly automatically associate with a deity due to heuristic thinking) is responsible.  At the same time, using a strawman to paint evolution as some chaotic, completely random process similar to building a house by throwing all the needed materials into a pile.  Like I said, quite sneaky. It's the same basic thing as old timey creationism just replace the overt religion with something that resembles science but isn't.

I remember I wrote a short (because the editors limited me to about 750 words) guest article in a local newspaper about the evolution/ID thing and I remember the wonderful comments I received online which most amounted to disgust, accusing me of being a "godless atheist" like it's something bad, telling me to read the Bible (which I have...twice - two different versions), thinking I'm smarter than I really am and wanting to "play scientist" (I suppose unless I have a doctorate in evolutionary biology AND Christian theology it's impossible for me to make an informed statement) and the always patronizing "I'll pray for you".  Pretty much every person commenting missed the entire point of my article.