[CS-FSLUG] Re: Intelligent design...

[Gabe Ginorio]

Hmmmmmm ....

> > The point that I think Henderson was attempting to make is one
> > relating to the falsifiability of intelligent design.  How can one
> > design a test in which an intelligent design hypothesis can be put to
> > the test with the possible result that it fail if it doesn't pass some
> > established criteria.  (In fact, if I recall correctly, some
> > organization put out a $250000US reward for anyone who can prove
> > flying spaghetti monsterism false).
> 
> Bzzzzt!  Failing grade.
> 
> Requiring somene else to prove a negative in order to make
> another's argument valid is a failed method based on first-year
> logic and critical thinking.
> 
> The $250,000. is mine because the premise has already been
> declared false by the very proposition.

Here's the problem. He says he'll give the money to anyone who
can do the impossible. Of course, he's obviously making a not-so 
veiled reference to the existence of God. He seems to believe
that proving God doesn't exist is impossible. 

Now here's my problem. The ID movement embraces many religious
traditions including Muslim, Christian and Christian Cults. They
are inclusive instead of exclusive. So, which "god" would this
man be trying to disprove. His mission is indeed made impossible
by the contradictions created by the mixed assembly that make
up the ID movement.

I don't like it either ... but what other choice do we have
right now?

--------------------------------------------------------------


> Intelligent Design is far more scientifically legitimate
> than the fraud perpetrated by Darwin -- intelligent design at
> its essential minimum merely postulates that "the watch cannot
> have assembled itself".

This is a postulate indeed ... but it is a far cry from Special
Creation.

---------------------------------------------------------------


> Evolution has been disproved mathematically -- the necessary
> probabilities of the most basic essentials of evolution reach
> into the realm described by math theory as nonsense.

The fact that the odds are very, very, very, very against it
does not make it impossible. It sounds silly but it is not
disproved.

---------------------------------------------------------------

> "God" is not required for intelligent design to be clearly
> and scientifically superior to evolution, merely an intelligent
> designer.

This part just plain sucks.

---------------------------------------------------------------

> The origin of *complex* life is unprovable via scientific methodology
> using evolution or intelligent design but the evidence before us
> *requires* intelligent design and obviously debunks evolution.

Becoming so confused and frustrated looking for answers, and finally
postulating the "God" did it isn't what I'm looking for. "God" by
default is weak at best. You can verify the history of the Bible, so
why not put "God" on trial and get this over with. Bring in the
witnesses and let's get on with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

> > Without being able to scientifically prove the existence of God, one
> > can't really prove the veracity of intelligent design.  The most that
> > can really be done is to prove other theories highly improbable. 
> > Hence, I think that the scientific method is not an appropriate set of
> > "tools" for dealing with instances in which divine intervention is
> > involved.
> 
> I disagree.  See above.

I also disagree. The existence of a "god" in the plurality of
the ID movement would be impossible to prove, but the God of
the Bible isn't all that hard to prove. Like I said, bring in
the witnesses.

Gabe