Is Intelligent Design a religious ideology, or scientifically provable?
First define what a science DOES, then see if creationism follows those rules.
Science, observes facts, forms theories, and performs experiments to test the facts and theories. If they do not work, then the theory is changed or discarded.
How is Intelligent Design like that?
It has created a theory and now searches for facts to prove this theory. If other facts are discovered that contradict it's theories, it responds by QUESTIONING the facts!!!!
not science to me....
2006-07-21 10:19:08 · 7 answers · asked by GobleyGook 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree. Science is definitely not just taking another theory and trying to disprove it thinking it will automatically prove an idea that popped into your head. Even if serious flaws were found in evolution and the theory had to be scrapped and reanalyzed that wouldn't automatically validate creationism/ID.
In order for ID to be a science they would have to devise a way of testing the hypothesis....it's not possible to test for god. Supernatural beings fall outside the realm of science, if we were able to prove them with science they would no longer be supernatural. It's also important to note that evolution in no way conflicts with the possibility of a god. Someone could easily believe in both god and evolution.
2006-07-21 10:27:15 · answer #1 · answered by laetusatheos 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Creationists react by trying to treat science like a religion. This is apparent in some of the godawful popular literature out there these days (e.g. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science," which would be a more accurate title if the word "politlcally" were nixed). They don't know how to understand anything other than an autocratic power structure. You're got your god or your priest (scientist) on high, handing down commandments to be followed, and ideas live or die according to the goodness of the priest or god, not according to the ideas' merits.
This is why you see that idiotic anecdote about Darwin recanting on his deathbed. Creationists don't know a thing about logic, so they think by attacking Darwin, they're attacking his ideas. It's sad, really.
2006-07-21 17:25:20 · answer #2 · answered by Minh 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ID cam close to being scientific when it first came out with the idea of "irreducible complexity". However, that concept has since been shown to be false. A partial eye really is better than no eye at all, and examples of 'eyes' ranging from simply photosensitive cells all the way up to a complete human eye exist in nature.
The flaw with irreducible complexity is that it presumes that there is an end in mind. If you drop that assumption, you no longer have irreducible complexity.
Now that ID doesn't have that to stand on, it's no longer scientific in even the slightest way. It's simply an argument from incredulity now, and a poor one at that.
2006-07-21 17:28:20 · answer #3 · answered by lenny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not sure what to say but the bible is not a science journal, it is notaccepted by any institutions. You cannot repeat the things published in a lab. Also the stuff published in it doesnt really have a scientific method or any scientific basis in it. It tells stories. A religious ideology at best.
2006-07-21 17:27:11 · answer #4 · answered by zatte 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, creationism and ID are not science.
They do not propose a testable falsifiable theory.
2006-07-21 17:25:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No ID does not have ANY verifiable of falsifiable hypothesis. And since they are the foundation of science, we must conclude that ID is what it is; mythology.
2006-07-21 17:27:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is BS until we make man from dirt in a lab.
2006-07-21 17:28:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋