• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 4.7%
  • no

    Votes: 61 95.3%

  • Total voters
    64
Then it's a question without meaning. To ask what "simply is", without referring to the simplicity of the matter, is questioning the existence of the object, or maybe even suggesting that it exists without reason. Neither of which make any sense at all, and have no place in an intellectual debate. Though maybe I'm mistaken and this wasn't an intellectual debate at all.

I agree the question was poorly worded. But that is neither of our faults. I figured they weren`t asking it right but you can`t blame tecoyah for answering the question as put.


You are attempting to save face for placing frore us a question that even you feel the need to clarify...attacking others for your own failure to communicate makes you seem a bit ignorant.

But, now that you have moved you goalposts, I will kick again:
I don`t think there is anything wrong with rephrasing it to make it more clear, or with your original answer. No need for anyone ot get uppity about it. Though I still don`t think he has worded it in anyway that makes your answer invalid.

Better yet can someone explain what this question has to do with the subject at hand? Seems to be going off on an obscure tangent of minutia.
 
Last edited:
You are attempting to save face for placing frore us a question that even you feel the need to clarify...attacking others for your own failure to communicate makes you seem a bit ignorant.

But, now that you have moved you goalposts, I will kick again:


Concepts that simply are;

Gravity
Astrophysics
Metabolism
Mathematics
Photosynthesis
Humor
Desire

None are simple, but they simply are.

First off you take this alot more serious than I do if you think someone should attempt to "save face" in here. I am by definition faceless, this is all about exchange of ideas and nothing else, we are all annonymous in this forum. My attempt to clarify my original remark was simply that, an attempt to clarify what I thought was obvious. I was referring to things like Darwinism which was the subject, not things like tequila, I just assumed you got that, my mistake. Your revised list still shows you cant refute my original statement. As for dismissing some smart ass punk with nothing to add to the conversation that was my mistake too, as a rule I just ignore idiots like that but sometimes I let one annoy me and give them the attention they are begging for. I have never had a productive conversation with you yet but I thought this may be the first time, you started out OK then went south on me, oh well.
 
First off you take this alot more serious than I do if you think someone should attempt to "save face" in here. I am by definition faceless, this is all about exchange of ideas and nothing else, we are all annonymous in this forum. My attempt to clarify my original remark was simply that, an attempt to clarify what I thought was obvious. I was referring to things like Darwinism which was the subject, not things like tequila, I just assumed you got that, my mistake. Your revised list still shows you cant refute my original statement. As for dismissing some smart ass punk with nothing to add to the conversation that was my mistake too, as a rule I just ignore idiots like that but sometimes I let one annoy me and give them the attention they are begging for. I have never had a productive conversation with you yet but I thought this may be the first time, you started out OK then went south on me, oh well.

I suppose then, there is no further point.

So be it.
 
I tried to read Of Pandas and People a while back, and it was filled with misrepresentations, false assumptions, and a complete misunderstanding of both the fundamental tenets of science, and for established scientific theories (other than evolution, I mean). I have searched far and wide for any real scientific data put forth by ID supporters in its favor. I have thus far found none. I beseech anyone in this thread who supports ID to provide some.
Intelligent Design is just respun creationism, Respun for legal reasons by creationists, and of course necessarily has a designER/god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design said:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]
It is a modern Form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which Avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who Reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to Circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally Redefine Science to accept Supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12]
The Unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is NOT science.[13][14][15][16]
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are NOT science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it Pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it Junk science.[19][20]......"
Overview
The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state endorsement of a religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court had also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction".[24] In drafts of the creation science textbook 'Of Pandas and People', almost all derivatives of the word "Creation", such as "Creationism", were Replaced with the words "intelligent design".[21] The book was published in 1989, followed by a "grass-roots" campaign promoting the use of the book to teach intelligent design in high-school biology classes.[25]....."
 
Last edited:
Intelligent design is a theory, but not necessarily testable, we speculate that there was a creator based on evidence. Likewise, abiogenesis is such the same. We can't prove that it happened nor can we provide a viable mechanism behind it. Science can test to see biomolecule formation in a supposed early earth environment, but even if biomolecules are randomly synthesized this does not prove that they were synthesized or that life arose in this type of fashion. Both are speculations based on evidence and largely reinforced by a person's own worldview.
 
Not enough poll options.

Intelligent design has many aspects all depending on who you talk to. For some intelligent design means a deity made everything, for others it was trans-dimensional beings who made this universe, and still others just regulate it to highly advanced aliens (from this universe just so you're not confused between this and the afore mentioned trans-dimensional beings) that just made humans.

Depending on which definition of "scientific theory" you use at least a couple of these things could be considered as such. At least if you use the loosest definition of it. Going strictly by what "scientific theory" means via actual real hard science then no, it is not a scientific theory. At best it would be a hypothesis. It would only become a theory if we found evidence of some form of life that would have been capable of such a feat. And right now we don't even have evidence of basic microbial life outside of our planet...much less intelligent life.
 
Back
Top Bottom