I heard that one of the fathers of "intelligent design" testified under oath in the Dover case that ID actually does NOT meet the minimum standards for a scientific theory... is this true?
Then why do people keep claiming that it does?
2006-08-19 04:39:19 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
ROY, you should learn something about science before you embarass yourself like that. You clearly don't understand anything about what the scientific method is based on.
Nice spin, though. Trying to say that it's science's fault.
You avoided the entire issue: Here is Behe, a scientist and PROMOTER of ID, who is admitting that ID is not science. You can't blame science for not letting ID ontp the playing field, because your own ID people admit that ID doesn't BELONG THERE.
2006-08-19 05:12:26 · update #1
Yup. Largely considered to be a leader in intelligent design, and the guy who came up with the Irreducibile complexity sham, he admitted under oath that ID is not science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
PS: hey don, given that he's THE guy that IDers turn to in order to prop up their unscientific garbage, his opinion that ID is not science is HIGHLY relevant.
2006-08-19 04:48:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont think that ID is science....and I don't think that this makes it any less true. To call truth only those things that can be replicated in a lab is to have an impossible narrow point of view about life. I believe in a creator. I don't think that Intelligent Design is a sound scientific theory. I also don't beleive that truth can only be defined by biologists.
2006-08-19 13:46:44 · answer #2 · answered by ii7-V7 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science is a closedfeild of study that will not accept as true anything that it cannot reproduce in the laboratory. This is the basis for faulting intelligent design. The same basis would hold that history itself never happened because it is not reproducible. Science cannot start yesterday over and relive it so by its criteria for scientific validity nothing but the existence of "Now" can exist for it is eternally present and a constant. The constant of the present is always in a state of being but even there reality is never the same. Science does not win the argument by default just because something doesn't meet its idea of truth being only that which it arbitrarily determines is the valid evidence for truth.
2006-08-19 11:58:57 · answer #3 · answered by messenger 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
ID is not science whether Behe testifies to it or not. It is so trivially obvious that ID is not science that there is no debate about it in the community of rational people.
2006-08-19 11:45:57 · answer #4 · answered by Gallivanting Galactic Gadfly 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting - will have to check that out.
Sloppy thinking, Roy.
2006-08-19 13:44:59 · answer #5 · answered by Skeff 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it is, more power to him. ID is a ridiculous theory in my opinion.
2006-08-19 11:44:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Fairy tails do not equal science, no matter how many like them.
2006-08-19 12:06:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who?
Never heard of him.
His opinion is of no matter.
http://www.answersincreation.org
2006-08-19 11:45:47 · answer #8 · answered by whynotaskdon 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋