Wow, i thought i had trouble reading. Z managed to incorrectly interpret a single word. Never mind z, i was going to let you in on it, just in time for christmas too, but it appears you are unworthy. Too bad.
No more needs to be said. This sentence unequivocally disproves ID, if this is actually what the majority of IDers claim as the basis for their arguments. I have a feeling that there aren't too many serious IDers who would go along with this. Nothing disproves ID. Please note the phrase "reasonable inductions" lol... yes, all very reasonable. Yes, it is very reasonable to induce ordered effect comes from an ordered cause. I am surprised that "induction" hasn't come up earlier. It is the only way, after all, that these arguments can be made. That induction may be the only way to arrive at the theory of ID doesn't make it an invalid theory necessarily. Certainly deduction doesn't do an IDer any good. No deduction that I have seen establishes as fact that ignorant chance if behind the workings of nature or biological organisms. Here is the induction, for anyone who needs it laid out. God exists therefore....(fill in the blank). Watch that first step... it's a doozy. Odd induction, and nothing at like the one that some ID proponents make. ID doesn't say that God necessarily exists, but that God's existence is a reasonable theory and explanation of the nature of life and the observations of the nature of biological organisms.
I admire you, Z10. At least you were honest enough to admit it. Mods, close this thread. We have come to the end of the line with this statement. This IDer states that ID is a scientific theory which cannot be disproved. Since 'disprovability' is the hallmark of a scientific theory, ID is not a scientific theory. I am out. This is getting repetitive. We are dealing with a faith-based belief and no amount of reasoning will shake the faith of the believer.
I second the motion. Extruding what could be stated in a few paragraphs, into an outrageously long thread, which is going nowhere faster than the speed of creation is just bad form. Merry christmas.
Why should religion/theology not be taught in schools? If the goal of education is to educate, how can theology/religion not be included in the curriculum, given the impact it has had, and continues to have, on not just the history of mankind but is interwoven into the daily fabric of most people's lives? It does not have to be taught with the intent to convert students to a particular religion or belief system. I'm talking about a survey course that covers the broad spectrums of religions and beliefs and presents them in a neutral context.
Nik, Karl popper was the one who came up with the idea of falsification as being evidence of a scientific theory. That idea is now not so well accepted from my reading of Philosphy of Science. But anyway Popper is famous for saying "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme."
Thanks for that, roberk. I think I should take your advice and listen to the arguments of a couple of other IDers. The arguments we are getting here are hopelessly opaque. Evolution was falling out of vogue (at least in America), but I feel that Stephen Jay Gould kind of reinvigorated it. I am a big SJG fan and he was famous for making big statements even though he wasn't 100% sure that they were right. You're probably aware that his idea of punctuated equilibrium gave an alternative explanation for the absence of certain crucial missing 'links' in the fossil record, but I understand how some would see this as a desperate attempt to save a floundering theory. For me, my belief in an evolutionary model of human development is informed by observation as much as anything else. I happen to have had a chance to spend time with some orangs in Indonesia and anyone who has that experience can have no doubt that we are related to the primates. It ain't coincidence. In addition, the preponderance of fossil evidence of the evolutionary development of literally thousand of species shouldn't be ignored. Humans get the spotlight but there are other examples. Maybe this is why the IDers are encouraged. After all, Man is different from the animals in God's eyes, right? Regarding the idea that falsification isn't the holy grail of science anymore... yes, I can see that. I have read more in the field of lay physics than any other scientific discipline, and of course epistemology is a big part of the discussion. Is my faith in the impossibility of showing 'evidence' of ID just as 'a priori' as the IDers' faith in the existence of God? I don't know.... my faith is very strong!! Do the most cogent arguments for ID even involve 'evidence'? I am not sure, to tell the truth. If you want you can point me to a source of information which describes the mainstream in ID thought and I will check it out. I assume it doesn't look anything like what we have been seeing here. I could do a search for it but I would rather a knowledgeable IDer point me to the leading proponents of the argument. Again, it can't look like what we've been seeing here. My participation here was a protest against fuzzy thinking, against arguments that are circular and self-referential. I don't believe in ID, I know that, unless by intelligent, IDers mean organized, in which case this whole thing will have been pointless. I assume that IDers feel that life is designed by an intelligent entity or being or power or spirit. Sorry. No such spirit exists. It's turtles all the way down.