Missouri puts prayers back in skool...

[Coito ergo sum]

It's the arbitrary idea that the universe had a beginning (no evidence) and that all things that begin must have an intelligent begin-ner (also unsubstantiated, since we have no examples of things actually beginning, we only have examples of forms changing or being changed into other forms). From two completely baseless claims (asserted as axiomatic) it is asserted that the necessary conclusion is that the Begin-ner must be a deity or intelligent designer or sorts. However, since the two basic premises fail of their own weight, the conclusion must also fail. It is only "if" the two premises are true that the conclusion would follow.

Now, give me an example of any other unsubstantiated "if-then" logic exercise, where the basic premises are not backed up by a shred of evidence, that we include in school curricula?

That's a strawman concoction of one specific argument in the much larger intelligent design debate. You have proven nothing by way of supporting your claim that the theory of intelligent design is "fairy tales."

Prove that there is or was no intelligent designer of anything, anywhere, anytime.

Why would I have to do that for it to be equivalent to a "fairy tale?" I can't prove that there wasn't a Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, or a Fair Godmother, or an Old Lady Who Lived in a Show anywhere, anytime, and neither can you.

What I can say is that there is no evidence for any of them, at all. And, I can say the same thing about ID.

ID is based on the idea that "everything that exists had a beginning." That, of course, is unsubstantiated nonsense. Nothing you or anyone else can point to that exists today can be proved to have a beginning. Everything we see, like Coke cans, computers, watches and cars, dogs, cats and people, all are just forms of stuff that existed before. Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form. ID just declares that everything that exists had a beginning, and not a single example of a thing with a beginning can be found -- you can point to a clay pot, but that didn't "begin to exist" it was formed out of stuff, and that stuff was formed out of stuff. That's it.

So, the next premise of "everything that had a beginning was created by a designer," is likewise just not in accord with reality. Nothing, as I said, had a beginning as far as we see - we don't see stuff coming into existence (we only see stuff changing in form). And, some stuff changes in form pursuant to the will or purpose of a designer, and other stuff changes in form according to natural processes.

So, the conclusion that there fore the universe had a designer because it exists and had a beginning is, well, completely and utterly unsubstantiated and illogical (because its basic premises are without foundation).

You say there is some other stuff that supports ID -- well, yeah - there is the "stuff is too complex to come about by chance," and the "stuff is too perfect to be natural," but of course, those are just declarations too.

It's tantamount to a fairy tale when someone just "says" X is true without anything behind it.

[Coito ergo sum]

But the scientific controversy over whether an intelligent designer exists, used to exist, and either did or did not interfere in natural evolution sometime in the deep past is a perfectly valid scientific question that has no religious overtones other than those imposed upon it by either Atheists or religionists as a part of a larger political and legal agenda.

When an intelligent design theory that is actually a theory and not a hypothesis, vague notion or wild speculation is put forward by a person or group without a larger political and/or legal agenda, then there will be a scientific controversy.

Until then, there is no real scientific controversy.

I would add that whether there are Leprechauns is a "valid scientific question," but we don't teach Leprechaun theory in schools. Until someone comes up with a decent scientific theory for it, though, we ought not waste precious high school time teaching LT to the kids, positing that Rainbows are too perfect to not have pots of gold at the end of them and such.

[Seth]

Seth's completely clueless when it comes to science, like most fundies.

And you're an ignorant fuckwit who is clueless when it comes to everything.

Something isn't "valid science" just because some loony suggests it.
It becomes "valid science" when it has been subject to enormous rigorous dissection by experts, when it makes predictions which come true, when nothing can be found to disprove it, and when the vast majority of the scientific world accepts it.

Strawman. I said "valid scientific controversy" you dunce.

Even then, it's only got "best explanation so far" status, and is open to debunking at any time.

Yup, now get on with your scientific debunking of the proposition that sometime (or more than once) in the deep past, an intelligence manipulated DNA in creatures on earth to guide them down specific developmental pathways. Go ahead, prove it or shut your pie hole, loony.

In that context, intelligent design isn't "valid science", it isn't any kind of science, it's loony bollocks.

Put up or shut up. Show your critically robust scientific evidence that no intelligent design of living organisms has ever occurred anywhere in the universe ever since the beginning of time until now.

[Seth]

Is Seth theist? Or just pretending to be on?

Neither. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist.

[Seth]

But the scientific controversy over whether an intelligent designer exists, used to exist, and either did or did not interfere in natural evolution sometime in the deep past is a perfectly valid scientific question that has no religious overtones other than those imposed upon it by either Atheists or religionists as a part of a larger political and legal agenda.

When an intelligent design theory that is actually a theory and not a hypothesis, vague notion or wild speculation is put forward by a person or group without a larger political and/or legal agenda, then there will be a scientific controversy.

Until then, there is no real scientific controversy.

Here's a theory: Sometime in the deep past, an intelligent designer intervened in evolution on this planet to guide living organisms down specific evolutionary pathways. Additionally, 65 or so million years ago, that same designer decided that dinosaurs were not proceeding down the pathway towards intelligence as the designer intended, so it perturbed an asteroid, causing it to hit near Yucatan, thereby causing the dinosaurs to become extinct and giving mammals their shot at evolving intelligence.

Since I have zero religious, legal or political agenda in mind, it's now a "real scientific controversy."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, it's not, it's just a idle conjecture.

[JimC]

Seth, this is a reminder that this post:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... w#p1245635

is a personal attack, and is thus against our rules: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449

Please desist from such personal attacks in future.

[Robert_S]

But the scientific controversy over whether an intelligent designer exists, used to exist, and either did or did not interfere in natural evolution sometime in the deep past is a perfectly valid scientific question that has no religious overtones other than those imposed upon it by either Atheists or religionists as a part of a larger political and legal agenda.

When an intelligent design theory that is actually a theory and not a hypothesis, vague notion or wild speculation is put forward by a person or group without a larger political and/or legal agenda, then there will be a scientific controversy.

Until then, there is no real scientific controversy.

Here's a theory: Sometime in the deep past, an intelligent designer intervened in evolution on this planet to guide living organisms down specific evolutionary pathways. Additionally, 65 or so million years ago, that same designer decided that dinosaurs were not proceeding down the pathway towards intelligence as the designer intended, so it perturbed an asteroid, causing it to hit near Yucatan, thereby causing the dinosaurs to become extinct and giving mammals their shot at evolving intelligence.

Since I have zero religious, legal or political agenda in mind, it's now a "real scientific controversy."

You do have an agenda when it comes to atheists, but I'll overlook that now.

Is this testable? Can you make a prediction about the results of any experiment or future discoveries? Does this go anywhere beyond speculation? I cannot disprove this idea of yours any more than you can disprove Last Thursdayism, but neither are science.

[Tero]

Intelligent design, Seth. Show me proof of design or a designer. We have no burden of proof. Fundies do.

[Seth]

No, it's not, it's just a idle conjecture.

So is multiverse theory.

[Seth]

Intelligent design, Seth. Show me proof of design or a designer. We have no burden of proof. Fundies do.

BT corn.

Now you prove that the same sort of thing didn't happen 100 million years ago, or 2 billion years ago.

[Seth]

But the scientific controversy over whether an intelligent designer exists, used to exist, and either did or did not interfere in natural evolution sometime in the deep past is a perfectly valid scientific question that has no religious overtones other than those imposed upon it by either Atheists or religionists as a part of a larger political and legal agenda.

When an intelligent design theory that is actually a theory and not a hypothesis, vague notion or wild speculation is put forward by a person or group without a larger political and/or legal agenda, then there will be a scientific controversy.

Until then, there is no real scientific controversy.

Here's a theory: Sometime in the deep past, an intelligent designer intervened in evolution on this planet to guide living organisms down specific evolutionary pathways. Additionally, 65 or so million years ago, that same designer decided that dinosaurs were not proceeding down the pathway towards intelligence as the designer intended, so it perturbed an asteroid, causing it to hit near Yucatan, thereby causing the dinosaurs to become extinct and giving mammals their shot at evolving intelligence.

Since I have zero religious, legal or political agenda in mind, it's now a "real scientific controversy."

You do have an agenda when it comes to atheists, but I'll overlook that now.

Is this testable? Can you make a prediction about the results of any experiment or future discoveries? Does this go anywhere beyond speculation? I cannot disprove this idea of yours any more than you can disprove Last Thursdayism, but neither are science.

Sure it's testable, just not with today's knowledge or equipment. Maybe someday someone will figure out how to test it. Maybe not. That does NOT mean that it didn't, or could not have happened, it only means that certain perfectly scientific and natural events and phenomena that occurred when there was no scientist present to observe them occurred when there was no one there to observe them, not that they didn't happen.

The fact that Newton could not detect protons or quarks did not render protons and quarks "supernatural" now did it? Science is an iterative process, not a concrete thing. For every scientific discovery there are many more that flow from that discovery. We don't know much of anything about the universe(s), and therefore we cannot say with any certainty at all that there was never any designer involved in the evolution of life on earth (or anywhere else for that matter) because it is perfectly possible to design life and not leave behind any evidence that the organism was designed for latecomers to the universe (us) to discover. That's a defect in OUR ability to detect, quantify and explain unknown phenomena, not proof that such phenomena did not or do not exist.

To say that in Newton's time that theorizing about sub-atomic particles was "unscientific" because it wasn't "testable" and no one could make "predictions" at the time is utter nonsense. You cannot make the claim that any speculation that can be based in natural phenomena (like intelligent design of living organisms) is unscientific merely because no one is able to test it or make predictions. All you prove when you make a claim is your own ignorance and the ignorance of science, just as calling protons "supernatural" in Newton's time would be an expression of scientific ignorance and nothing more.

Here's a fact that we do know: it is possible to directly manipulate genetic material to create living organisms with known and predicted characteristics. We humans have done it on many occasions. The most salient example is BT corn, which was genetically engineered by Monsanto to be resistant to Roundup. This is proof positive and beyond any doubt that genetic manipulation of living organisms to guide their development down specific intentional pathways as designated by "intelligence" HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED ON EARTH. This fact can be easily extrapolated backwards in time to speculate, with full scientific validity, that some intelligence in the deep past engaged in genetic manipulation of living organisms on earth to guide their development down specific intentional pathways towards a predicted end.

There is absolutely nothing religious or supernatural about such speculation. It's absolutely possible. Nothing in known science would prevent this from being true. But it's not "testable" because it's a one-time event engineered by an intelligence, not a natural phenomenon that is recorded in the fossil record. But it is REPEATABLE, as I have stated. We can manipulate genes, so could an intelligence a billion years ago.

Therefore, the hypothesis I stated to begin with is absolutely a valid scientific hypothesis. Whether it can ever be proven with direct evidence is questionable, but then again observing the "God Particle" is questionable too.

I challenge you to show me how my hypothesis is NOT SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE, which is the only way that it would be a non-scientific speculation. Don't try the typical evasion of shifting the burden of proof around. I've set forth a valid hypothesis, and now the burden is on you to demonstrate how it is not possible to reach that hypothesis using scientific reasoning. If your only argument is "well, you can't prove it and you have the burden of proof" then you are simply evading the fundamental issue, which is not the scientific truth or falsity of the hypothesis, but whether or not the hypothesis states a valid scientific alternative explanation for the way life is on earth today.

[Seth]

Seth, this is a reminder that this post:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... w#p1245635

is a personal attack, and is thus against our rules: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449

Please desist from such personal attacks in future.

When you start saying the same thing to everyone else who has been personally attacking me, then I'll give a fuck what you have to say.

[FBM]

Unicorns are scientifically possible. Yet to see one. Or evidence for one. Until such time as such does appear, unicorns are nothing to me but a fiction.

[Seth]

Unicorns are scientifically possible. Yet to see one. Or evidence for one. Until such time as such does appear, unicorns are nothing to me but a fiction.

So, now you're claiming that your ignorance is the metric for scientific validity?