Rick Reuben wrote:Because current science cannot recognize evidence of intelligent design, that does not mean that evidence of intelligent design does not exist.

Even if this were the case, science not being able to recognize evidence of ID, neither can the ID proponents. They rely on misrepresenting themselves, and their views; "scientific" arguments to propagate their religious belief, and magnifying holes in current evolutionary theory.

If their aims were purely to shed light on ID through legitimate means, through empirical data, and testing, and not simply to have their religious views pushed into science class, I could reasonably think they would not be the black sheep they are today.

But that's not what they do, and not having what is needed to be considered a legitimate science, and the image they present, and the ties they have to various religious fundies, damns them from being respectable.

Then it's a moot point. WTF is the argument about?

Colonel Panic wrote:Then it's a moot point. WTF is the argument about?

Had this thread been titled "agnostics pwn n00b atheists lol," we could have all saved a lot of time and been more productive at work.

Oh man.

100 or so posts in order to get at an absolutely trifling point elevated by strawmen only slowly brought into full view.

Clocker Rick Bob Reuben is batshit.

Who in the scientific community claims to have scientific evidence that rules out intelligent design?

Rick Reuben wrote:I've told you 100 times. The argument is against those who claim to have scientific support for intelligent design, and against those who claim to have science that rules out intelligent design.

The burden of proof is not incumbent on science to "rule things out". Science doesn't work that way. If a theory doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny (ie. valid evidence and reason), it's disposed of. End of story.

It is not the aim of science to look for evidence to refute any and all flawed, poorly-reasoned or unprovable theories.

Colonel Panic wrote:Science doesn't have to "rule things out". It doesn't work that way. If a theory doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny (ie. valid evidence and reason), it's disposed of. End of story.

It is not the aim of science to look for evidence to refute any and all flawed, poorly-reasoned or unprovable theories.

Your post gets to what I very poorly hinted at.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:The burden of proof is not incumbent on science to "rule things out".

You are thicker than an engine block. The duty of science is to remain conscious of its own limitations. As I have already told you, science was limited from seeing electrons at one time. It is possible that sceince is limited from seeing evidence of ID all around us today.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Dr. Geek wrote:Who in the scientific community claims to have scientific evidence that rules out intelligent design?

By labeling ID 'unscientific', they imply that current science has the ability to test ID and reject it.

As usual, you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Go follow the link I posted and read that article about the scientific method and then get back to me.

It's like arguing with a belligerent 8th grader.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote: the scientific method .

There is no current scientific method for testing the appearance of something in nothing. There is no way to rule out evidence of ID that could be all around us, because it presumes that current scientific methods are capable of doing it.

Then what you're describing is not science, but pseudoscience.

Rick Reuben wrote:

steve wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:Atheists are the ones mistakenly using current science toclaim that they have proven a negative, by claiming that, "If science can't see it, it isn't there."

Find me one single quote of anyone saying what you claim they're saying.

Read the thread. Newberry said it a dozen times. It's all Newberry ever says.

Rick, is that really the best you can do? Come up with a quote from someone who you constantly argue with, on this thread and others, to prove your point that "Atheists are the ones mistakenly using current science to claim that they have proven a negative". Atheists (plural) imply more than one. I really get the sense that Steve was looking for a quote from someone from the outside world at large, not the inner world of EA.

It looks to me like people who believe in ID are the ones who are discounting evidence about the validity of evolution theory, and the main problem scientists (not all of whom are atheists, btw) have with ID theory is that it almost automatically considers invalid any evidence that doesn't support ID theory.

I do agree that current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the universe are incomplete and do not completely solve the mysteries of these things, but any honest scientist (which I am not; a scientist that is, I am honest) would say that theories regarding these things give an incomplete answer. There is general agreement in the scientific community that ID does not rise to the status of scientific theory, since ID does not follow generally agreed upon scientific principles. If ID did follow those principles, and was still disregarding anyways, you could have a case saying they are being suppressed, but I don't see that happening.

Scientific thought, and the scientific process, has been gradually become divorced from religious dogma over time, since scientific thought and religious dogma are really talking about two different things; physical, provable evidence and faith; it's the ID people who want to push back the clock, and have scientific thought defer to religious dogma.