2. "Intelligent Design is not science" is another common contention. Well, that is simply not true and it has been demonstrated that Intelligent Design Theory employs the scientific method. The real argument at the heart of this contention is that ID is incapable of making empirically testable claims. This, too, is untrue given that ID uses data from biology and other physical sciences. Many of the published peer reviewed papers make this very clear.
It isn’t science and all the attempts in the world to redefine “science” will not make it be so. Intelligent Design does not apply the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
ID’s claims cannot be empirically tested. It doesn’t matter if it claims to use data from biology or other sciences; the claims it makes about such data again, *cannot* be empirically tested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method
We see that none of those papers do anything like this. Nope, they make an assumption and then ignore anything that doesn’t agree with them, clinging to the initial assumption. That’s not science at all. It’s just Christians who have so little faith that they will intentionally lie to create anything at all to prop up their myths.
3. The other thing I am hearing is that Intelligent Design Theory is a construct of a religious movement that seeks to dismantle the validity of the ToE. While I do not believe this to be true in the least, even if it were true, so what? I would like to think that the scientific community would welcome with open arms anything that challenges other theories. That’s what science is all about. I find it abhorrent and deplorable that any scientific discipline would be cast aside simply because it “threatens” other theories. The ToE is littered with problems and abiogenesis remains a mystery. The exploration of alternative origins should not be frowned upon nor should the valid challenges being made against the ToE.
It is a construct of Christianity. We know this because of how creationists are caught in lies about it. We have the infamous “cdesign proponentists” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22
BS, you wish to ask “so what?” when it can be shown that ID is a pitiful attempt by creationists to lie. Why should the “scientific community” welcome liars with open arms? Especially when they have absolutely no support for their claims which are indeed that their god created the universe. Creationists have no hypotheses that can be empirically tested. Even if anyone was stupid enough to think that ID was about aliens, you also have no evidence that aliens were responsible either and that nonsense only pushes back the purely religious creationist nonsense back one step. You claim to find it abhorrent and deplorable that scientists ignore your supposed “scientific discipline” but again, ID isn’t a scientific discipline at all. Such indignation for such garbage. ID doesn’t threaten science at all but it does waste time and resources with its lies. You calim that the ToE is litered with problems. Well, dear BS, what are these problems? You must know about them all and can tell us exact what they are, so get to it rather than again making vague claims. Where are all of these “valid challenges”? You also again try to claim that abiogensis is “still a mystery” in an attempt to lie about the current research. Do we understand exactly how it happened? Nope, but again, nothing about that says that your god (or any aliens) did anything at all.
4. There was another post that charged the ID publication(s) of containing information that cannot be understood because of the manner in which it was laid out and the terminology used. Granted, some of it can be VERY difficult to understand and grasp but that does not preclude it from being accurate. The same could be said for material coming out many scientific disciplines. Besides, as I recall, there are ID classes now being taught that may help us laypeople better understand it. In fact, last I heard they have had over 100 young up and coming scientists graduate from one of the programs.
Okay, BS, I want you to tell me exactly what this paper said and what it means: Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, 'Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,' Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010)
If it’s so correct in its assertions as you have claimed, I do expect you to know exactly what it’s talking about. And don’t be afraid to use technical words, I do have a good background in biology. I do note that this paper uses already disproven non-peer reviewed creationist nonsense as references. A rather pretty house of cards that already has fallen down. He also uses references to random books too, like Dawkin’s The Ancestor’s Tale but where this was used is up to anyone’s guess and seems just to be there to pad out a paper to a hilarious degree in an attempt to give some validity to nonsense from creationist groups like the Discovery Institute. It’s a shame that creationists assume, quite wrongly, that people are as stupid as they wish they were.
Considering that creationists have to create their own journals and ignore actual scientific ones, is pretty damning on just what they think of their own work.
5. There was a comment that abiogenesis is supported by “theories on how molecules can become self-replicating.” To be more accurate, these are hypotheses that are being tested. Abiogenesis is far from being a scientific theory and, frankly, like it or not, abiogenesis will NEVER be anything more than a hypothesis. There are simply too many variables and combinations of those variables that must be assumed in order to turn the hypothesis into a scientific fact. At best, we may someday have a small handful of hypotheses that depict what “might” have happened but it cannot ever be know what actually took place….even if it were true.
Pity that you can’t actually address me, BS. but that’s pretty typical. Yep, I said theories and should have said hypotheses. Which goes to show one that you do understand the difference when it’s convenient and of course ignore it when it’s not. At best, ID is a hypothesis but cannot be tested at all in any experiments. What a shocker! Thanks for demonstrating yourself that ID is simply nonsense. And it’s cute to see you stamp your feet and declare all in your own willful ignorance that abiogenesis will magically “never” be anything mnore than a hypothesis. Poor thing, it must be so disappointing for you to have science showing that your myths are wrong constantly and your creationists failing so badly that you have to make up stuff like this. Yep, it’s always amusing as heck to see someone who doesn’t even remotely understand the science to suddenly declare that he “knows” that it’s impossible!
Well, according to this article it is:http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/how_bright_is_t054521.html
Oh golly, BS, an article from a creationist, how could I ever have doubted! It’s twue, it’s twue!
Oh my, they’ve declared that they don’t have to worry about their debacle at Dover anymore! Wow, love to see the history revision going on here. Again, funny how these supposed creation scientists can’t get one paper in an actual journal that wasn’t formed to do *only* creationist nonsense or peer reviewed by anyone who wasn’t already a creationist. Nope, nothing but masturbation in the creationist community since they can’t stand up to the light of day. Repeatedly, the creationists are shown again and again to have failed in any actual science and shown again and again to be quite the masters of deception until they are caught and then repudiated by the sources that they now somehow forget to remove from their deceitful claims since they need all they can get, true or not http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html