So if we changed "intelligent design" to "evident design," would that make it more palatable for evolutionists

Question

We have to consider their feelings....

Love Jack

But Charleen, there is a certain amount of "evidence." Many scientists have pointed out that there are elements of language embedded in the DNA code. Grammar, syntax, organization, delivery of "messages," etc. Whether this fact is the result of random development, or guided by an intelligence really doesn't matter - it's worth looking into, isn't it? Love Jack

jonmc49 - "evolution by natural selection" - this is supect, since natural selection is limited - it explains how a species adapts, but it doesn't tell me how a fish became an amphibian, unless we really stretch the bounds of credibility.

jonmc49 - "Evolutionists followed where the evidence lead [sic]"? Yes, they did, and some of the evidence led to a dead end - the fossil record, for instance. So it has to be explained away.

Evolution, therefore, seems more of an a priori proposition, or a logical deduction, than an actual workable scientific hypothesis.

jonmc49 - the analogy to a criminal breaks down quickly. When a crime is committed, the evidence is readily testable and observable. Not so with evolution. But then, it doesn't NEED to be testable - according to evolutionists, the theory is obvious on its face and needs no "testing." We just need to look for the evidence, because the theory TELLS us that the evidence MUST be there. Any contradictory evidence then needs to be explained away - like the "panspermia" proposition, that spacemen sent life to earth...

Answer 1

I'd accept "emergent" design as a metaphor.

Answer 2

No. How can you change the lie that is ID, into the truth that is the theory of evolution by natural selection.

You people have all ready tried to repackage your nonsense, when you went from creationism to ID. I think that was brought into sharp relief and ID proponents embarrassment at the Dover trial.

The answerer below is a prime example of projection of your assumptions on to another. Evolutionary science followed where the evidence lead. The below answer is not only incoherent, it is not the truth. " The problem that we were not in the past to document it " affects many sciences, such as cosmology, for instance, By your reasoning, we could never convict someone of a crime, because we were not there to observe it! A ludicrous and easily refutable position.

Another of your problems. Feelings are not more important than facts. The fact of the matter is that ID is BS and evolutionary theory is supported by the evidence. Please recuse yourself from all future jury duty.

Are you educated at all? Your tiresome and continual erecting of " straw man " arguments is highly indicative of the inferior mind. A person who willfully ignores the testable genetic information, geologic information, molecular cell information and even the evidence from physics, can not be said even to be sane!

Answer 3

It's not the packaging that is the problem, it's the content, or lack there of. Jacko, why don't you explain how ID qualifies as a Scientific Theory. Of course, you'd have to find out what a scientific theory actually is first. At which point you'll either discover ID fails to even begin to make the grade, or you'll start performing mental back flips and pretzel twists to hammer the square peg of ID into the round hole of science.

Answer 4

johnmcs "criminal" analogy is perfectly valid.The obvious invalid canard is that there is some great dichotomy between operational and historical science.Creationists greatly exaggerate this to attempt to place themselves on equal ground with what real science does.Both operational and historical science make the same so called presuppositions.Both use direct and indirect observations to construct theories and models.Operational science often times is without direct observation,like in the case of atoms,electrons etc.Again,both will have to make assumptions and predictions about things not directly observed.Good science will try to make bold, risky, and precise predictions like in the case of chromosomal fusion.Creationists/iders never come close.Research will be submitted to scrutiny for peer review.Following the proper channels is critical to credibility/reliability.Many things in the past have left good evidence for reconstructing.Evolutionary explanations rest on observable,repeatable accessible mechanisms like natural selection, sexual selection mutations and more.God/id did it fails to provide any checks and balances.Repeating creationist nonsense will get you in trouble every time.It shows how little you actually know about science.

Answer 5

I would like an explanation as to what is so evident about your belief's design?

Write a book on how evident it is, with experimental results that support/prove your view, and that can be replicated by anyone. Then maybe it will be more palatable for evolutionists.

The difference between your views and mine: evidence

Answer 6

I think it is the Creationists who have had their feelings hurt, by proving that they are related to chimpanzees. ID is a placation for this offence.

There is no more evidence for design than there is intelligence.
.

Answer 7

Jack is back.

Don't answer Jack's questions. He apparently has nothing better to do in life than ask dumb questions in biology. He thinks he is tweaking those who know about evolution and biology, but is really only showing how little he knows.

Answer 8

Probably not, seeing as their starting presupposition is that evolution has to be true, so they base all their interpretation of scientific evidence on their starting presupposition (jonmcn49 demonstrated that quite clearly). That's one of the primary differences between empirical science and historical science. Naturally, different assumptions yield different answers. Even one of the steps in the scientific method tells us to 'interpret the data'.

The problem with historical science is that we can't accurately use the scientific method to confirm a hypothesis about something that happened in the past, simply because we weren't there to document it.

Everyone has a presupposition(s) that dictate how they interpret data, it's just that the difference becomes extremely controversial when the subject of origins comes up, because that's a field of work in which faith tends to intertwine with science, whether it be creation, ID, or evolution.

Answer 9

Ummm, I think the evolutionists are more worried about the concept than the name, but nice try.

Answer 10

Renaming pseudo-science doesn't work. The Creationists tried it once, and got caught.