Evolutionists Give Credence To The Fact That Intelligent Design Is A Science!!!

@leavert65 (1018)
Puerto Rico
March 31, 2007 9:40am CST
A major common argument that evolutionists use against Intelligent Design is that it isn't a science because it isn't falsifiable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia edited by its own readers, is overtly biased when it comes to matters of origin. With regards to Intelligent design it says " Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable or nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability." But it appears that after much debate, two myloters, although evolutionists,have given their support to the fact that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable! Fargale:"It it so fortunate that you finally admitted that intelligent design can be falsified" Latrivia: "Intelligent Design is a heck of lot more falsifiable than the theory of evolution [Mylot, "Creation or Evolution, Which side are you on?" pg. 2, March 27,2007] Therefore, as a science, why shouldn't Intelligent Design be taught in our schools? So often we make uninformed decisions about matters which directly or indirectly affects us all. I invite evolutionists as well as others to state what they actually know about intelligent design and to express their INFORMED opinions about why or why not ID should be taught in our schools. ***I would ask that when ever possible posts be supported by documented scientific literature. Please just don't post links without giving a brief synopsis of what the article contains.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@flowerchilde (12547)
• United States
1 Apr 07
Here's a really neat paper I found! It's well worth reading.. I may decide to paste it, it's that good! And it's not that long.. But here's the link: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/IntelligentDesign.htm
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18312)
1 Apr 07
This article is very poor, the case it makes rests on three points. 1. This a bald unsupported claim and does not follow 2. This is a straw man argument the validity of evolution does not rest on its denial of theism 3. This is just wrong, science makes progress specifically by ignoring many areas, even were their to be a completed science not all questions would be answered all the best urban
2 people like this
• United States
1 Apr 07
..you really believe evolution has been proven..?
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18312)
1 Apr 07
I think it is undoubtedly true that evolution takes place and that it occurs by the process of natural selection all the best urban
2 people like this
@urbandekay (18312)
1 Apr 07
Well, two mylotters claiming it is falsifiable hardy constitutes sufficient criteria for its acceptance as a science. You would need to clearly indicate exactly how it was falsifiable, as well as meeting other criterea all the best urban
1 person likes this
• United States
1 Apr 07
To quote something I just read - "Why should the denial of theism be considered science, while the affirmation of it is considered “religion?” It is no less scientific to deduce intelligent design from the data than to deduce an unintelligent origin." And also - "Students learn to think critically by being exposed to different positions for evaluation. No human theory is infallible. Mistakes can be found in the writings of neo-Darwinists and of ID writers alike. To expose children only to the neo-Darwinist position, and to make the (to my mind fantastic) claim that it is “fact, not theory” is to deprive them of a serious opportunity for critical thought and to impoverish their education. That kind of dogmatism is, to my mind, the final proof that evolutionism is religion as well as science."...........written by John M Frame (I don't know who that is! but I'm glad I read his paper, I would see it as a challenge to evolutionists, and am curious if the theory can cope with such.) Here's the link - http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/IntelligentDesign.htm
1 person likes this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
1 Apr 07
You're right Urbandekay. I just didn't want to make my introductory any longer than what it already was. however, I did make reference to it in the link I posted which is what the myloters were responding to
2 people like this
@urbandekay (18312)
1 Apr 07
Yet it is IC that when it is presented is done in a manner not open to criticism, whereas science by its nature is about debate all the best urban
2 people like this
• Thailand
12 Apr 07
Dr. Francis Collins is one of the most respected members of the scientific community today. He directed the research that lead to the successful decoding of the human genome. Please read what he has to say about Intelligent Design. http://tinyurl.com/2ktcvm