Is Intelligent Design part of science?

19 10 2007

If you look up on Wikipedia, it says in the second paragraph :

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.  The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.  The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.  Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

This is amusing to me.  I’ll agree that you can’t prove intelligent design, so they have a case that it’s not true science.  But doesn’t the same thing apply to evolution?  There is no proof of evolution.  There’s some fossils, which people have used to create stories of how those animals lived and evolved, but there’s no scientific proof of this.  Any honest scientist will agree.  This has not been “tested by experiment”.  Yet it is taught as fact in many schools, which is not right.  (Can you say “double standard”?)  Evolution is definitely not scientific fact or proven truth, and it should be presented only as a hypothesis.




7 responses

25 10 2007

There can be no “consensus” in science. A theory is either proven true or false with no in-between. There are theories that can be tested and proven or disproven. Real science is not up for a vote to get a consensus. Rather, it is based on data collected during testing. If you can’t test a theory and achieve measurable results, a key element of science is missing. Without testing, we just have theories with no real answers. We call that philosophy, not science.

6 05 2008

Wikipedia is not exactly a great source.

Also, the overwhelming evidence of evolution outweighs the..well, no evidence of intelligent design and is not in violation of church and state.

6 05 2008

This use of Wikipedia isn’t using any questionable data; I was just using that quote to make a point. What it says is believed by many scientists, who consider Intelligent Design to be pseudoscience.

I think students should be taught to consider the different sides of the debate so they can intelligently make up their own mind. Evolution vs Intelligent Design is one of those debates that has not been proven either way, so both sides should be taught. The students should be taught to think critically, rather than to follow the masses.

And students shouldn’t be told that evolution is a scientific fact / proven theory, because it’s not. It’s believed by many, but not all, and it’s not proven using the scientific method. I’m okay with it being taught, because students need to know what it is, but it should be taught as it is, not from a biased, incorrect perspective.

8 05 2008

To Grant: This “overwhelming evidence” for evolution that you speak of brings one question from me. Where are the fossils? Where’s the “missing link”? Where are the half-and-halves. If we came from apes, where are the half monkey, half humans? A bone here and a bone there with a wild theories attached are not by any stretch “overwhelming” or conclusive evidence. It’s amazing that the fossil record can show us dinosaurs but can’t show us “evolving man” which supposedly came after dinosaurs in the fossil record. This should make those fossils even easier to recover than dinosaur bones.

Are there fossils of men and animals that vary from the modern version? Yes, because of micro-evolution WITHIN THE SPECIES. Species over time adapt to their environment (this IS proven science), which, by the way, is really more evidence for I. D.

As for the tired “church and state” argument, show me evidence for that in the constitution of the U.S. This phrase came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson written to a pastor. That hardly rises to the level of legitimate settled law. That’s just an excuse that people who don’t want to be “offended” use to stifle free speech and freedom of religion. The conclusive evidence here is that Americans in many cases have become pansies and think they should never hear anything contrary to their views because they might be “offended”. If only
the politically correct crowd and the evolution-only crowd were as “tolerant” as they want everyone else to be!

12 09 2009

Where are the fossils?

The answer is that the Museums of Natural History worldwide are filled up with them. The rest of them have not been discovered yet.

15 05 2008

Do you know what constitutional document referred to the separation of church and state in its text? The constitution of the former Soviet Union which was based upon communism and atheism.

Our citizenry is sadly very ignorant of our own origins and the principles upon which our nation were founded. Recent generations in the U.S.A. have been preyed upon by historical revisionists that have scrubbed school textbooks removing some of the most important references to our founding fathers and the Judeo-Christian principles they incorporated into our republic. And by the way, the revisionists are social liberals that endorse everything from gay marriage to abortion. These liberals do everything they can to force their atheist beliefs upon our nation and revise history to get all of us to believe that there is no God.

Evolution, like humanism, is another form of the great atheistic conspiracy to convince man that God does not exist. No Christian will deny the Creation story, nor will they endorse the schemes of those who try to destroy the foundation of our beliefs.


12 09 2009

I suggest you attend a course in philosophy of science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: