[Please explain, exactly, what known phenomena that the field of science known as "Intelligent Design" studies.]
Yes, of course. The field of science known as "Intelligent Design" studies the known phenomena of intelligent design.
[Please also explain whether this field is primarily a sub-field of physics, chemistry or biology.]
Why is that important?
[Also, are those who claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, rather than a general scientific field, simply uninformed, or are they lying?]
The distinction is unimportant to my premise. Theory or not, if it is a general scientific field, you should have no objection to having the subject taught in a science class.
37 comments
Intelligent design is in no way a scientific field, theory, or worthy of serious consideration, especially when talking about teaching it in the classroom.
This actually sort of references an earlier conversation where SH asked what testable predictions Zoology makes. He was informed that Zoology is a field of study, not a scientific theory, and therefore does not have to make predictions. SH then immediately redefined ID as a "scientific field" so that it was not required to make testable predictions.
"Theory or not, if it is a general scientific field, you should have no objection to having the subject taught in a science class."I have quite a number of objections to ID, but let's use this one: ID is NOT a "general scientific field." ID is not scientific at all and deserves no place in a science classroom.
Strange this ID thing it was abandoned as church dogma long before evolution was proposed as a theory and yet the same argument with its flawed logic is still being used, indeed Darwin was well aware of the argument having studied it for his degree. However it wasn't scientific then and it isnt now Darwin's degree, i do belive was in theology
Gosh, with such clear definitions and all those well thought out answers, it's really puzzling why actual scientists won't take it seriously. Oh wait, maybe it's because "I believe it, and that makes it so" doesn't hold water? Maybe because there's nothing remotely scientific about it? Yeah, that could be it.
I am almost in favor of teaching ID in school. I don't think that the fundies have thought this thing out at all. God has to keep "fine-tuning" his creation. Why? Because he MESSED IT UP the first time! Good-bye infallable perfect being, hello kids asking unwanted questions in church about "Did God make a mistake here?" Love to hear some of those excuses.
Teaching it in class, eh?
You have to have theories to study phenomena in a field of science. You can change, delete, or create theories in your field, but there have to be theories that try to explain what's going on. Just saying ID is a field of science is worthless if you don't have some kind of coherent theory to explain it.
"It studies itself." Right.
Circular logic or fingers-in-ears argument technique.
If it's to be taught in a science class, we need to know WHICH science it can be filed under.
Religion was a separate subject, where we learned about all the larger religions, fairly objectively.
Did he just say that intelligent design means intelligent design?
Living proof, then, that ID didn't always work.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
