General > Off Topic
to Nums and PY
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---Testable? Why, ID is very nearly testable. Right now we're just copying and pasting genes around, but very soon I'll wager we will be able to create custom genes that do what we want (or not do what we want, but that's really another issue). Genetic manipulation is truly coming into its own.
--- End quote ---
That doesn't make inteligent design testable though.
That would mean that it is possible to create life and not that that is what did happen.
ID as a theory claims that at some point in the past (or possibly even right now and still ongoing) some inteligence did, is continuing to have an input on the development of life.
This theory is 100% untestable. It cannot be falsified and is therefore unscientific.
The fact that something is possible is NOT evidence that it happened.
Science does not make any attempt to say that it is not possible for life to have been inteligently created. It simply says that there is ZERO evidence that it happened. There is simply no way to investigate/test the hypothesis.
It falls entirely outside the realms of science and so science utterly ignores it.
ID is a philosophical concept and until ID proponents come up with a real theory that is scientifically testable, it will and should stay that way.
It is a perfectly valid and even possible scenario that deserves a good examination of it's tenets. However this should NOT take place in any kind of science class.
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---Is forming an artificial organism impossible? I'd say no, as I bet most people would say.
--- End quote ---
Then you are in the minority.
Most people, and in fact all creationists/IDists that I have spoken to, claim that we will never be able to do this and that this is the primary reason for believing in an omnipotent designer.
If we were able to create life (artificial is not really the point. Life is life) then we would be the equal of the designer so the concept falls apart. You are then left with the question of who designed the designer. This goes back an infinite number of steps until you finally reach the point of an omnipotent designer who exists outside of time and has no beginning.
Wait a minute. :idea:
We already have one of those. His name is GOD.
ID is a thinly veiled attempt to get religion back into our schools, in spite of the constitution.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---ID as a theory claims that at some point in the past (or possibly even right now and still ongoing) some inteligence did, is continuing to have an input on the development of life.
--- End quote ---
I'd call that the strong ID theory. In a weaker version, I'd say something like:
some intelligence did and may be continuing to shape our evolution.
The "may be doing it now" is indeed quite untestable.
As to what happened millions of years ago, it is no more possible to say that the organisms evolved than to say they were just plopped here. Now, saying they evolved is a fairly good claim. Fossil record seems to support the idea of a gradual increase in complexity. Don't get me wrong.
But let's say some intelligent designer influenced the development of organsisms at key points in our history. Key points that evolution was incapable of doing (in limited time). Then we must reexamine the nature of evolution in general.
It's sort of like Gaia theory. It doesn't really change anything or present new facts, it just changes how we approach the data and information.
Right now if you see something in the fossil record, you're assuming it's a direct ancestor of the first organism. You're assuming natural forces alone led to its creation. While probable, it's hardly exhaustive.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Is forming an artificial organism impossible? I'd say no, as I bet most people would say.
--- End quote ---
Then you are in the minority.
Most people, and in fact all creationists/IDists that I have spoken to, claim that we will never be able to do this and that this is the primary reason for believing in an omnipotent designer.
If we were able to create life (artificial is not really the point. Life is life) then we would be the equal of the designer so the concept falls apart. You are then left with the question of who designed the designer. This goes back an infinite number of steps until you finally reach the point of an omnipotent designer who exists outside of time and has no beginning.
Wait a minute. :idea:
We already have one of those. His name is GOD.
ID is a thinly veiled attempt to get religion back into our schools, in spite of the constitution.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I know most creationists would scoff at that statement.
Who designed the designers? Evolution, on the galactic scale over galactic time could indeed very probably produce intelligence. Simple numbers game.
But lets say it's a 1 in a 10^100 shot. There are some major hurdles to overcome after all. Everytime the designers expanded past their planet, they seeded, wether intentionally or not, that planet with some of their own planet's organisms.
In that sense alone, life developing in one part of the galaxy could expland and grow into other parts.
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---But let's say some intelligent designer influenced the development of organsisms at key points in our history. Key points that evolution was incapable of doing (in limited time). Then we must reexamine the nature of evolution in general.
--- End quote ---
OK I have a problem with this logic. What is the proposed nature of this inteligent designer and where did it come from?
If it evolved itself then the same time constraint applies to it.
If not then we are talking about God which makes ID religion.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version