Intelligent Design

[thatpfunk]

I know little about it. Anyone have any interesting sites or discussions they can lead me to?

I am most interested in the science community's response.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

I am most interested in the science community's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't accept it.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

I am most interested in the science community's response.



They don't accept it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I had figured that. I'm curious as to the arguments against it. I know a couple people who are in to it and I would like to find some points to refute.

My google search sucks.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I had figured that. I'm curious as to the arguments against it. I know a couple people who are in to it and I would like to find some points to refute.


[/ QUOTE ]

SO argue the affirmative first then.

[malorum]

http://science.box.sk

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I am most interested in the science community's response.

[/ QUOTE ]
The response of the scientific community is really just to point out that "Intelligent Design Theory" isn't really a theory, and it's not science. It makes no falsifiable predictions, so it can't be tested.

[drudman]

Here's the textbook analogy:

Pretend you are a traveller from a distant land. In your country, you have very very limited technology. As you cross the desert that separates your home with the rest of the world, you notice something gleaming in the sand ahead of you. It is a wristwatch, but of course you have no idea what a watch is. You notice, in amazement, that the watch has tiny moving parts. These parts, in fact seem to move with incredible regularity. You notice that as the small, fast moving part completes a circuit, one of the other parts shifts a small amount in the same direction every time. You remove the broken glass and lift the top of the disc. What you see shocks you... tens more small metal wheels with interlocking teeth, all clicking and whirring away with incredible regularity. You are familiar with nature, and you conclude that whatever you have found could not possibly have formed naturally. It had to have been made by some intelligent designer.

That's intelligent design. In practice, the "watch" from the analogy represents biological structures that ID supporters say are so complex and precise, they could not have possibly formed naturally. The most common structure pointed to is the human eye, but recently pseudoscientists have tried to actually scientifically support their claims by pointing to a particular flagellum structure on some bacteria that acts as a propellor for motor function.

It is very unscientific however, and kind of a joke amongst the most serious biochemists in the world. Lynn Margulis is one of these, and she does a lot of lectures debunking ID here at the University.

[BluffTHIS!]

ID is just pseudoscientific bunk put out by fundamentalist Christians who don't accept evolution, because their literalist-out-of-context interpretations of scripture can't accomodate it. Presumably part of the "intelligent design" was God putting dinosaur bones directly into sedimentary rock as well.

[David Sklansky]

"ID is just pseudoscientific bunk put out by fundamentalist Christians who don't accept evolution, because their literalist-out-of-context interpretations of scripture can't accomodate it. Presumably part of the "intelligent design" was God putting dinosaur bones directly into sedimentary rock as well."

BluffTHIS

So Not Ready, in your heart of hearts, don't you feel closer to bossjj than you do to BluffTHIS. Cmon admit it. ADMIT IT. I don't think its a sin. At least you know where bossjj stands and he believes his ideas are based on the bible's words. This other guy I don't know about. Who would you rather go fishing with. It's OK to say.

[BZ_Zorro]

http://www.talkorigins.org/index.html

This is basically the hub of scientists' responses to creationism. Every conceivable question you could have about evolution is answered. Check the FAQ and some of the articles, they're very interesting reading.