quote:

You can’t prove how life originated, because we can’t duplicate it and we weren’t there to watch the forming of the universe.

Hahaha. You can be so amusing. There are other ways to test the theory other than recreating the universe.

quote:

ID isn't science because it doesn't fit the scientific method.

Well by that definition neither does evolution. You can’t prove how life originated, because we can’t duplicate it and we weren’t there to watch the forming of the universe.

In a since you are just worshiping another god. The god random chance and hopping that that will provide a satisfactory answer for the origins of life.

quote:

The watchmaker metaphor does not really apply, since it is technically possible to create a working watch completely by accident.

First of all we aren’t talking about watches anymore. We see more and more complexity in life, so now the Metaphor of an aircraft carrier filled with Jet aircraft fits better.
Find a selection of people who work with multi hundred million dollar fighter jets and tell them that such a wondrous peace of equipment came about threw random chance. I can guess what kind of a reaction you can get.

quote:

(no 42 jokes, please).

Darn it!

*walks away*

quote:

the process of the forming of the universe and life was guided by a designer.

That right there is why ID is unscientific. You can never prove (or disprove) that there is some being that guided the creation of the universe. It's like saying "I can't remember where I put my keys...so fairies must have stolen them." You're inventing something to make up for the lack of explanation the evidence gives you. Of course, there is the possibility that such a designer is not an invention and actually exists, but that's something no one will ever know for sure. But even if it is true, it's not science, as I said. Therefore it doesn't belong in science classrooms.

ID isn't science because it doesn't fit the scientific method. There are four steps to the scientific method, and they are outlined in the link I provided. Briefly, I will run through why the scientific method doesn't apply to ID:

1. Observation of a phenomenon

We will take this phenomenon to be life. It exists, so what caused it?

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomenon

Life is too complicated to have come up through natural methods, so there must be a designer guiding things.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena

This designer could also explain the complex nature of the rest of the universe, other than life itself.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments

Oops, can't test something you can't sense.

The fourth step is where ID falls apart. In order to be science, your hypothesis must be tested in order to determine if it is valid or invalid. But what kind of test can you perform that would support the idea of an omnipotent designer guiding the development of the universe? The only evidence (as it were) that this designer exists is the work that he/she/it has done, in other words, life, the universe, and everything (no 42 jokes, please). But this is not specific evidence of a designer. It could be evidence of anything. The watchmaker metaphor does not really apply, since it is technically possible to create a working watch completely by accident. It just takes time, which the universe has plenty of.

Anyways, until some kind of test can be devised to prove (or disprove) the hypothesis that the universe was guided by some sort of super-powerful being, ID is not science, and thus should not be taught alongside evolution.

quote:

I thought that Inteligent Design and Creationism were the same?

No they are not the same, though that is a rather common misconception. Evolutionists are convinced that intelligent design is just creationism in disguise and they are so sure that they don’t listen to that the ID people are saying. Incidentally the creationists think of ID as evolutionism in disguise saying that it is a compromise ploy fielded by the evolutionists.

quote:

Nephilem, for the purpose of clarification, do you think that you could give us your understanding of ID

The theory of intelligent design teaches that there is a designer. It teaches that the theory of evolution is not sufficient to explain the origin of life and says instead that the process of the forming of the universe and life was guided by a designer.

Intelligent design differs from creationism is several major ways.

1. ID does not specify a creator, thus it is generic to any belief in a god.
2. ID does not tech a young earth, and agrees with the idea that the universe is 16 billion years old.
3. Because ID agrees with an old earth it does not rely on the idea of a global flood to explain why the earth looks old

I thought that Inteligent Design and Creationism were the same?

Nephilem, for the purpose of clarification, do you think that you could give us your understanding of ID and why it is a strong scientific theory? Because I just don't see it. Here in the UK, we are only taught evolution in our biology classes because the govermnent and the education authorities regard this as the only scientific explanation.

quote:

but ID has more problems.

Really? Can you name these problems? Intelligent design has a lot of scientific basses, there is a common lie out that intelligent design is just creationism in disguise but this claim is again no more than a lie. ID is a legitimist scientific explanation for the origin of life, and man.

...but ID has more problems. Ever wonder why string theory isn't often taught in physics classes? It's less accepted than more traditional theories regarding physics. ID has little or no basis in actual science, other than what it shares with evolution. The rest is completely unscientific. It can't be proven at all. Heck, to most people, it just looks like a convenient way to fill in evolution's holes. Can't find a link from this fossil to this fossil? Easy: God did it all so it must work out in the end.

That's not science, which means it shouldn't be taught in a science class.

quote:

The theory of evolution has its problems

This is why it should not be the only theory taught in school. The theory has just as many merits as the theory of evolution, and at the very least they could at least give it a secondary place next to evolution. Instead evolution always is the explanation, and the problems with the theory are never mentioned.

The theory of evolution has its problems, which are due to incomplete evidence. If we had every fossil of every animal that has ever lived, then we'd have a clear picture of evolution. But since there are massive holes in the fossil record (due to fossils we have yet to find or remains that never underwent fossilization), evolution is an incomplete theory.

Also, I meant that the Jesus argument is part of the idea that God is all-powerful. If Jesus is God (or at least part of him), then God's power is constrained while in human form. Or at least, I think that's what Brehon was getting to.

How about we actually talk about the theory of evolution. What problems does the theory have?

quote:

and the Jesus argument is simply one aspect of it.

One aspect of what?

You claimed God was outside this dimension while implying that is how he was able to create this dimension, Brehon brought up the idea that he couldn't be Jesus if he was in another dimension, and you felt compelled to argue the case.

The way I see it, the whole idea of Creationism rests on the claim that God is all-powerful and is not part of this universe, and the Jesus argument is simply one aspect of it.

quote:

This suggests that he was restrained, which still acts in my favour.

I will say this again, Jesus was completely God, and Completely Man.

By the way, what does this have to do with the origin of life?

quote:

not completely restrained

This suggests that he was restrained, which still acts in my favour. I didn't deny that he was both man and God, but that the God part of him would be limited while it was on earth; for example Jesus does not time travel while he is on earth, though that would have made his teachings more wide reaching and would have fulfilled the wishes of his Father much better.

quote:

If you exchange you for God, the hand for Jesus, the chains to physical being and freedom for omnipotence, you pretty much get my argument.

Except that Jesus was not completely restrained while he was on earth. The Bible says that he was both fully God and Fully man.

quote:

Jesus is part of God. That’s why when he was on earth; he would talk to God the Father who is in Heaven. God allowed a part of himself, his son, to be constrained. But God was still all powerful.

Let us work with an illustration. You are free at this moment. You can choose to do what you want. However, if I were to chain your hand to a chair, your hand would be constrained; you would no longer be entirely free. The rest of your body would be, but your hand would be tied to the chair.

If you exchange you for God, the hand for Jesus, the chains to physical being and freedom for omnipotence, you pretty much get my argument.

quote:

But surely, God would no longer be omnipotent, can't you see? If he was Jesus and is constrained, then he is no longer omnipotent.

Jesus is part of God. That’s why when he was on earth; he would talk to God the Father who is in Heaven. God allowed a part of himself, his son, to be constrained. But God was still all powerful.

quote:

God has three parts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So part of God, Jesus could be constrained by being on earth as a human, while the rest of God was still unconstrained.

But surely, God would no longer be omnipotent, can't you see? If he was Jesus and is constrained, then he is no longer omnipotent.

quote:

I suppose I take a random universe just as much on faith as you do a created universe, but in my mind, a random universe seems much more likely, since it would be completely natural.

Indeed. When someone wins the lottery, do we put it down to the intervention of God, or to chance?