• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID theory

Bob Klase said:
If I remember correctly from high school (a long time ago), there are several steps in science before something is a theory.

1. Observation of data

2. Formulation of an hypothesis that would explain the data observed.

3. Use of the hypothesis to make predictions about further observations or tests.

4. Testing the predictions.

Seems to me that ID has barely made it to step two. That's a far cry from a scientific 'theory' and the fact that they even want to call it a theory in science is proof in itself that it's not (at least that's my theory).
Click to expand...

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment (hrmn, can I still use that term if I'm defending Christian Fundementalists?)...

1. Data Observed: There are some things in this universe we are not yet able to explain via a cause-effect relationship.
2. Hypothesis: There is an intelligence with the ability to produce effects with no observable cause.
3. Prediction: There will be some effects for which no observable cause will ever be found.
4. Test: Must demonstrate that no potentially-observable cause will ever be be discovered for an effect (only one necessary).

I feel it's at #4 where it falls apart. Let's say you try to prove it with the popular "evolution of the eye". The claim is that the eye is too complex to have developed under evolution alone, that such a thing is too unlikely to have occured without an intelligence behind it.

Last night's powerball numbers were 7, 21, 43, 44, 49 and PB# 29. The odds of those exact numbers coming up are 1:17,532,955,440. That is pretty unlikely. Does that force you to assume that some intelligence must have been behind it? Using the likelyhood of an event that has already happened is suspicious at best. I suppose it really depends on what you feel the likelyhood is that such an intelligence exists, and that said intelligence could and would intervene.

For someone that already believes such an intelligence exists, AND that such an intelligence is interested in affecting outcomes in the lives of humans, the chance of such intervention would be estimated rather high.

For those that are not convinced such an intelligence even exists (there is a noted lack of solid evidence), much less could have the ability to affect things in such a way, and even given that, would not necessarily be inclined to use such ability to affect outcomes in the affairs of humans, the chance appears much less.

Finally, let me demonstrate other results you end up with with ID-style reasoning:

1. Observation: There are many living people, there are also many who have died. I am currently alive.
2. Hypothesis: I am immortal.
3. Prediction: I will live forever
4. Test: At no time in the future will I be dead (in the sense that I can no longer be revived).

If the ID people want to claim that it can never be proven that such an intelligence does not exist, then I will claim that they can never prove to me that I am dead, and therefore I am immortal.
 
petre said:
4. Test: Must demonstrate that no potentially-observable cause will ever be be discovered for an effect (only one necessary).
Click to expand...
It falls apart here because this would effectively be proving a negative.
 
Mojo said:
Oh well, I voted "nej" anyway.
Click to expand...

See? Danish is not hard at all.

Ja = Yes.

Nej = No.

Cat = Kat.

Computer = Computer.

Glas = Glass.

Træ = Tree.

Here's the test: Rødgrød med fløde = ?

;)
 
CFLarsen said:
See? Danish is not hard at all.
Here's the test: Rødgrød med fløde = ?
Click to expand...
Pronunciation, not translation, is the real test of that one!

And don't forget this one:
Danish: Det store kolde bord = English: Smorgaasbord
or
ombudsmand = ombudsman
 
dann said:
Mostly for Danes/Scandinavians:
Poll: Should Creationism and "Intelligent Design" be taught in schools as science? ja = yes, nej = no
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2005/10/16/082132.htm
Click to expand...
Just voted and got told the results. They are

Skal skabelseslære og "intelligent design" ind i skolens naturfag?
Ja 31%
Nej 68%
Det vil jeg ikke tage stilling til 2%

Not sure how many people have voted.
 
Darat said:
To allow IDs to try and argue from science is a mistake, because then it seems as if it is being taken as science, it should be treated for what it is, a discussion of theology.(Edited t)
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why the Dover trial is going on. The IDers want to argue it from science (no matter how much they have to misrepresent what ID is and what science is). And the plantiffs want it recognized for what it is- theology.
 
Blue Bubble said:
You took the words right out of my mouth !

These were my very first words learned in Danish. And yes I know what it is :)
Click to expand...
"Rødgrød med fløde" are the first words that all foreigners are asked to say in Danish, a language that definitely wasn't created by a very intelligent designer. Notoriously impossible to pronounce for anybody brought up with another mother tongue than Danish.
 
CFLarsen said:
See? Danish is not hard at all.

Here's the test: Rødgrød med fløde = ?

;)
Click to expand...

"Redporrige with cream"? I think it's some sort of dessert, but I can only say the phrase and have no memory of having seen the dish.
 
dann said:
Mostly for Danes/Scandinavians:
Poll: Should Creationism and "Intelligent Design" be taught in schools as science? ja = yes, nej = no
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2005/10/16/082132.htm
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Danmarks Radio said:
Dr. scient. Ove Poulsen fra Ingeniørhøjskolen i Århus og præsident for de europæiske fysikere, betegner teorien om intelligent design som "noget banalt sludder".
Click to expand...
To the point! IDC is "mindless bunk" (my quick translation). The poll, sadly, shows only a 2:1 ratio of reason over...misinformation (there must be hope, Danish brethren!).
 
Pastor Bentonit said:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
To the point! IDC is "mindless bunk" (my quick translation). The poll, sadly, shows only a 2:1 ratio of reason over...misinformation (there must be hope, Danish brethren!).
Click to expand...
To the point??! Are you trying to derail a serious discussion about rødgrød, Pastor?

This is what rødgrød med fløde looks like, gruk:
http://www.dr.dk/mad/opskrift.asp?inpOpskriftID=1559
http://www.experienceplus.com/reading_room/archives/2003/11/rdgrd_med_flde.html

This is how you pronounce rødgrød med fløde:
http://www.speakdanish.dk/html/pronunciation_intro.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think that the 2:1 ratio reflects that the creationists are also busy ...
The vote of the undecided has dropped from three to one percent!
 
dann said:
Gruk apparently honors the late Piet Hein with his name. Hein was famous for his gruks - and supereggs: http://www.randi.org/jr/051002.html
Click to expand...
Man, I thought you were talking about the Dutch privateer Piet Hein, who jumped the Spanish silver train at Matanzas Bay, Cuba, in 1628 under contract for the West Indies Company. That was one of the most succesful hostile takeovers ever.

But I'm waaay off-topic. Back to ID. Or rødgrød med fløde, as the case may be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom