I was going to create a topic about intelligent design and creationism

[jj_frap]

Then I realised that they have nothing to do with science and that pseudoscience is not identical to philospohy.

[txag007]

Not true. (And by the way, the sarcasm is noted.)

The theory that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent being is based on science. Judging by your post I'm sure you've already been there, but see this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3133991&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1).

And this (http://www.godandscience.org).

[David Sklansky]

"The theory that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent being is based on science.'

Whether the universe was designed is not, to most scientists a settled question. Whether specific animals were designed (the topic of the OP), to almost all scientists, is.

[txag007]

There is a reason Stephen Hawking has not won a Nobel Prize. His theories lack sufficient evidence to be proven. Evolution has a similar problem.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent being is based on science.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the theory of Intelligent Design and how can we test it?

[BZ_Zorro]

Evolution is a fact in the scientific community. I'm not talking micro evolution, I'm talking about the fact that organisms evolved from single celled organisms to what we see today. This is not in dispute amongst scientists, or any person with a brain. Even the Catholic chuch accepts it.

The theory of precisely how this evolution occurred is still being worked out. We've come a long way though (genetics, sexual selection, cell differentiation, etc).

[txag007]

For the universe, see my earlier post.

For mankind, see here (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html) and here (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html).

[txag007]

"This is not in dispute amongst scientists, or any person with a brain."

Wow. You guys get testy when someone questions the theory of evolution. Lol. Listen, I'm not saying your wrong, only that there is scientific value to alternate theories. As for it not being in dispute with anyone with a brain, I'd love for everyone with a brain to look at the evidence and decide for themselves. See this (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html) for instance.

[Somekid]

Models that quote the bible add no objective merit to the argument. Neither does adding scientific notation to dates taken from the bible.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason Stephen Hawking has not won a Nobel Prize. His theories lack sufficient evidence to be proven. Evolution has a similar problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now first off, from reading my postings here, you should know that I am a conservative catholic, though one who believes in evolution. So I believe that there is God who created the universe, but that He used the big bang, chemical processes to bring about organic life, and evolution of the species to bring about [censored] sapiens, rather than direct creation of our or other species. ID is in fact psuedo-scientific drivel put out by fundamentalists who make literalist interpretations of the bible and who don't realize that true doctrine should not be in conflict with true science.

And your quote above about evolution is wrong. Just because all the steps in certain evolutionary processes have yet to be discovered, does not mean that evolution of the species through genetic mutation and natural selection is untrue. Furthermore, it has actually been observed in species with fast reproductive cycles such as various fly species as well as plants. Check it out.

[BZ_Zorro]

I read your link. It's refreshing that they don't claim fossils are planted by Satan, or that the earth is 6,500 years old. Or that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (as a physicist, I still cringe every time I hear that). However, they are still wrong. If you care, the main point of his argument is throughly debunked here:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

Most other creationist assertions are debunked here:
http://www.talkdesign.org/

And everything you ever wanted to know about how mainstream science views evolution is found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
In particular see this page:
29 evidences for 'macroevolution' (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

If you can read the entry on phylogeny, explain it back to me, and still believe in creation, I will be surprised.

edit: wait, I take that back. You can believe in creation (as in God created the universe), and also the current scientific view of evolution. Many theists do. When I say creation I mean the arguments of the creationists.

Frankly, I'm embarassed for you. The fact that someone needs to believe in young Earth/ man did not evolve stuff belies a lack of imagination, understanding, and open mindedness that God, if he did exist, would be ashamed of. It is entirely plausible, and consistent with the evidence, that God created a functional universe that did its thing perfectly without his intervention.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The theory that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent being is based on science.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the theory of Intelligent Design and how can we test it?

[/ QUOTE ]For the universe, see my earlier post.

For mankind, see here (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html) and here (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html).

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, but neither your previous post nor either of those links listed any way in which ID might be tested or falsified.

(It's possible I missed it if one of them did, so feel free to quote the relevant section or to describe the test it proposes.)

What experiment can we do to test (i.e., subject to potential falsification) the "theory" of ID?