Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design

[JoeyKnothead]

From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

[chris_brown207]

Intelligent Design is just a dressing up of the classic "God of the Gaps" fallacy...

If anything is so complex that we cannot fully explain it... then it "must" be made by a god. (Thus they fill in the gaps in our knowledge with a god of their choosing)

Calling it an Intelligent Design does not change that main thesis behind it.

[East of Eden]

Intelligent Design is just a dressing up of the classic "God of the Gaps" fallacy...

If anything is so complex that we cannot fully explain it... then it "must" be made by a god.

What if God really was the first cause? It is unscientific to rule out a possibility a priori, especially when more and more scientists are seeing evidence for design.

[East of Eden]

science class is for science. ID is not science.

ID has no central hypothesis, no central theory.
Who is the creator? they don't know
How did the creator do it? They dont know
When did the Creator do it? They dont know
What is the limit of the Creator? They don't know
Can you tell the difference between the Creator and Micro Evolution? Sorta

That is not science. If ID could come up with a testable science sure let it in the classroom. But if no paper on ID has ever been published in Nature or other such journals why would we let it in the classroom?

And mainstream science doesn't know how the first non-life became life, they only have guesses. How come the only forbidden guesses are those involving ID?

[ChaosBorders]

From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

No. Intelligent Design is not science. Period. End of story. They are idiots if they think otherwise.

[Abraxas]

Intelligent Design is just a dressing up of the classic "God of the Gaps" fallacy...

If anything is so complex that we cannot fully explain it... then it "must" be made by a god.

What if God really was the first cause?

Then if you want it in a science class you had better show it scientifically.

It is unscientific to rule out a possibility a priori,

It is not ruled out a priori, however, until a testable hypothesis is constructed it cannot be examined with science.

especially when more and more scientists are seeing evidence for design.

Certainly false. ID never had widespread support to begin with and it has less now, what with most of the leading proponents, like Behe, has thoroughly discredited themselves.

And mainstream science doesn't know how the first non-life became life, they only have guesses.

No, they have testable models and data.

How come the only forbidden guesses are those involving ID?

Because it has no testable models, no data, and the predictions they make keep coming back wrong.

[East of Eden]

From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

No. Intelligent Design is not science. Period. End of story. They are idiots if they think otherwise.

Your opinion. Funny how the mainy Christian founders of Western science had no problem with the concept of God and His involvement in Creation, not for some reason it's 'anti-science'.

[East of Eden]

Intelligent Design is just a dressing up of the classic "God of the Gaps" fallacy...

If anything is so complex that we cannot fully explain it... then it "must" be made by a god.

What if God really was the first cause?

Then if you want it in a science class you had better show it scientifically.

It is unscientific to rule out a possibility a priori,

It is not ruled out a priori, however, until a testable hypothesis is constructed it cannot be examined with science.

especially when more and more scientists are seeing evidence for design.

Certainly false. ID never had widespread support to begin with and it has less now, what with most of the leading proponents, like Behe, has thoroughly discredited themselves.

And mainstream science doesn't know how the first non-life became life, they only have guesses.

No, they have testable models and data.

How come the only forbidden guesses are those involving ID?

Because it has no testable models, no data, and the predictions they make keep coming back wrong.

Where is that testable data of how the first non-life became life?

[Goat]

Intelligent Design is just a dressing up of the classic "God of the Gaps" fallacy...

If anything is so complex that we cannot fully explain it... then it "must" be made by a god.

What if God really was the first cause?

Then if you want it in a science class you had better show it scientifically.

It is unscientific to rule out a possibility a priori,

It is not ruled out a priori, however, until a testable hypothesis is constructed it cannot be examined with science.

especially when more and more scientists are seeing evidence for design.

Certainly false. ID never had widespread support to begin with and it has less now, what with most of the leading proponents, like Behe, has thoroughly discredited themselves.

And mainstream science doesn't know how the first non-life became life, they only have guesses.

No, they have testable models and data.

How come the only forbidden guesses are those involving ID?

Because it has no testable models, no data, and the predictions they make keep coming back wrong.

Where is that testable data of how the first non-life became life?

Self replicating RNA

Peptides might hold missing link to life

[East of Eden]

Intelligent Design is just a dressing up of the classic "God of the Gaps" fallacy...

If anything is so complex that we cannot fully explain it... then it "must" be made by a god.

What if God really was the first cause?

Then if you want it in a science class you had better show it scientifically.

It is unscientific to rule out a possibility a priori,

It is not ruled out a priori, however, until a testable hypothesis is constructed it cannot be examined with science.

especially when more and more scientists are seeing evidence for design.

Certainly false. ID never had widespread support to begin with and it has less now, what with most of the leading proponents, like Behe, has thoroughly discredited themselves.

And mainstream science doesn't know how the first non-life became life, they only have guesses.

No, they have testable models and data.

How come the only forbidden guesses are those involving ID?

Because it has no testable models, no data, and the predictions they make keep coming back wrong.

Where is that testable data of how the first non-life became life?

Self replicating RNA

Peptides might hold missing link to life

From your link:

"He is quick to point out that, while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not themselves a form of life."

[Goat]

Intelligent Design is just a dressing up of the classic "God of the Gaps" fallacy...

If anything is so complex that we cannot fully explain it... then it "must" be made by a god.

What if God really was the first cause?

Then if you want it in a science class you had better show it scientifically.

It is unscientific to rule out a possibility a priori,

It is not ruled out a priori, however, until a testable hypothesis is constructed it cannot be examined with science.

especially when more and more scientists are seeing evidence for design.

Certainly false. ID never had widespread support to begin with and it has less now, what with most of the leading proponents, like Behe, has thoroughly discredited themselves.

And mainstream science doesn't know how the first non-life became life, they only have guesses.

No, they have testable models and data.

How come the only forbidden guesses are those involving ID?

Because it has no testable models, no data, and the predictions they make keep coming back wrong.

Where is that testable data of how the first non-life became life?

Self replicating RNA

Peptides might hold missing link to life

From your link:

"He is quick to point out that, while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not themselves a form of life."

Yes?? And??? No one said that know everything. You asked specifically about testable data on how the first life became non-life. This is step one.. Combine that with the peptide article, we get more steps. We don't have the whole picture, we only have bits and pieces of data.

The sound of moving goal posts is horrendous.