Is Intelligent Design a "pseudoscience"?

Posted by: NewLifeChristian

A recent scientific paper in the journal "PLOS ONE" received heavy criticism for suggesting we were designed by a Creator. What do you think? Is Intelligent Design a "pseudoscience"? Read more:

  • No, Intelligent Design is not a "pseudoscience'.

  • Yes, Intelligent Design is a "pseudoscience".

21% 7 votes
79% 26 votes
  • The real pseudoscience is evolutionism, not intelligent design. In fact, instead of brainwashing our children into believing the lie of evolutionism, we should teach the "middle-ground" of intelligent design in public schools, as opposed to creationism.

  • Pseudoscience is when you invent a false science to reinforce your beliefs, something with zero proof that can be easily disproven. So by this logic both evolution and the "standard intelligent design" argument are pseudo sciences, Charles Darwin wants to come up with a alternative to creationism, he invents evolution, there is zero proof of evolution and it is easily disproved, contrary to what evolutionists have proposed, it has never been demonstrated, there is no fossil record, all we have is fossils of many creatures, the giraffe for example, that have fossil records going back millions of years with no change whatsoever, we have a 330 million year old human fossil named Lucy that we have known about since 1972 that disproved th e "humans are only 100,000 years old" belief of evolution, and we have a dinosaur footprint with a human footprint inside it, 2 evidences that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time, so yeah, it is perfectly rational to reject evolution. Intelligent design is a pseudoscience not because G-d doesn't exist or that there is no proof, it's a pseudoscience because most times it's enthusiasts use falsified as evidence, Christians by the way, if you go to a Jewish site they will offer you hard facts, not religious dogma.

  • Well it's pretty simple. As long as there are observations, hypothesis and theories it's science. So yes, Intelligent design is a scientific theory. Observation: There's perfect positioning of the heart, being protected by the torso. Hypothesis: It was designed this way. Theory: There's a being with higher knowledge that created the human body the way it is in order to protect vulnerable organs. We can't reject the hypothesis. We also can't confirm the theory. But by any means, it doesn't make it pseudoscience.

  • Intelligent Design has never claimed to be "science". It is an explanation of the universe's origin without the close-mindedness of naturalism directing its every idea. Science certainly has no problem arrogantly weighing in on theological areas when science fails to come up with answers to what is so obvious to most people. Science isn't equipped or designed to study the supernatural let alone pontificate on metaphysical topics. We can then see why the physical sciences have a philosophical presupposition to naturalism (atheistic) that the evidence must fit into regardless of its implausibility. They claim objectivity and neutrality and to follow the evidence where ever it leads. But if it leads to a supernatural source that ex nihilo created such a finely tuned universe designed specifically for human life to flourish, they arrogantly claim "God is religion, that's not science" and go back to scratching their heads at how to explain abiogenesis and how random chance figured out how to evolve information and form DNA from it. We gotta make sure people keep taking Darwin seriously despite the embarrassing lack of transitional interspieces fossils that we should be swimming in, not to mention most of Darwin's theory was guesswork and inferences tailored to eject God from the picture. Intelligent Design acknowledges what seems so apparent, without ridiculous notions about chance being responsible for divine wonders like human consciousness, emotion, free will, logical reasoning, and love. Just because it is outside the empirical realm of the physical sciences, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Science needs to stop acting like it's the absolute bastian of all knowledge and truth.

    Posted by: Verita
  • In as much ID uses real science to support its arguments, It is not pseudoscience.

  • duh

  • go watch neill degrasse tyson's stupid design he blows intelligent design right off the map

  • Pseudoscience is "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." The scientific method can be used to analyze the available evidence and propose theories. I believe Evolution and Intelligent Design both fit the available evidence, but Intelligent Design adds an extra element (a designer) which cannot be explained by the scientific method. I personally believe that God created the universe but I believe it is impossible to prove it. The scientific method can only reveal clues to the chain of events that followed creation. For the record, I also believe chain of events took more than 7 literal earth days. requirement of an intelloffer reasonable , but there is no way to scientifically test Evolution and Intelligent Design are two theories

  • How can we be smart enough to debate this subject, but be so stupid as to not realize that perhaps it is the human body that creates the human body? Perhaps our cells know us really well, just like a dildo maker will get reaaaaaaaaallllly familiar to the in's and out's of a phallus than most men are comfortable for. We are humans every day, Being human. Maybe that gives us a right to be really good at making humans? Evidence can be proven to prove my point - such as me going out clubbing and having outrageous, unprotected sex - I guarantee I can make you a human. Does this make me God? No. It makes me a Human. Why do we need to discuss on what we can or cannot prove, when the proof is right inside of you??? But of course, we are too smart for that, and would rather create arguments that span decades to come to a similar conclusion - IT IS REALLY HARD TO FIGURE THIS OUT! Perhaps instead of just beating each other over the heads because we can be labeled - why not use this space for discussion, and honest debate??? /rant

    Posted by: Zarium
  • It's worse.

  • It is. But I believe in it. Let's get this clear. Nihilism is apparently true. But is it true?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-06T19:11:30.0865391Z
@triangle.128k Well, unfortunately "duh" isn't a valid answer. Do you have any evidence to suggest that intelligent design is a "pseudoscience"?
reece says2016-03-06T19:34:51.0247857Z
@NewLifeChristian Why have evidence when you can have faith, isn't that right?
harrytruman says2016-03-06T19:49:07.4636212Z
Blind faith, that's funny, go to a Sikh or Jew site, you get actual REASON there.
reece says2016-03-06T19:56:33.0185693Z
@harrytruman It's all the same to science. Faith is believing in something; with or without any information about whatever that something is. Blind-faith... Is lacking in some component(s) of information but still continuing to believe in something.
reece says2016-03-06T19:57:47.6196821Z
@harrytruman Belief isn't knowledge.
triangle.128k says2016-03-06T20:13:39.9525233Z
@NewLifeChristian There's no evidence, there's only distortions of current evidence to "prove" intelligent design.
SamStevens says2016-03-06T21:30:32.7286597Z
Newlifechristian: To what extent to you believe in evolution? Do you believe changes within species can occur(new subspecies)?
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-07T23:09:50.5270322Z
@reece Why not have faith when there is plenty of evidence to back it?
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-07T23:10:25.5187294Z
@triangle.128k What "distortions of current evidence" are you talking about?
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-07T23:13:36.9512378Z
@SamStevens I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. Microevolution is evolution within a biblical kind. AiG explains what a "kind" is pretty well, you can read their article here:
SamStevens says2016-03-07T23:27:23.7807458Z
Newlifechristian: So speciation can not happen?
triangle.128k says2016-03-07T23:32:35.4234530Z
@NewLifeChristian Give any evidence you have and i'll explain why it's distorted and manipulated in attempt to prove creation.
reece says2016-03-08T02:29:26.0420624Z
@NewLifeChristian Learn what nature tells you, instead of imposing your beliefs on nature.
SamStevens says2016-03-08T02:41:06.4844220Z
If we were to bring the terms micro and macro evolution into the mix, you would have to accept that macro evolution is true-or partly true in your case-because speciation is essentially the creation of a new species, which is change greater than micro evolution, newlifechristan.
ssadi says2016-03-08T15:45:42.8153362Z
@triangle_128k! Here is only one evidence that God exists (in round 3)... Please explain why it is distorted and manipulated?! Http://www.Debate.Org/debates/The-existance-of-God/4/
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-08T21:50:16.0024389Z
@SamStevens Put simply, I do believe in speciation; however, I don't believe in drastic evolutionary changes between two kinds (like dinosaurs evolving into birds).
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-08T21:53:23.0275977Z
@reece Nature tells us that evolutionism is a total lie.
reece says2016-03-08T22:33:14.4777079Z
@NewLifeChristian Who do you mean by "us"? Religious radicals? Don't worry, it's all part of God's plan. Is that what i have to stoop to?
triangle.128k says2016-03-08T23:04:40.3770651Z
@ssadi Are you crazy? This poll is whether creation or evolution exists, not god. I never said I disbelieved in god.
reece says2016-03-08T23:17:13.2055679Z
@triangle.128k All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-08T23:26:41.5914857Z
@reece No, by "us" I mean everyone. It should be eminently clear to everyone that we (as well as all life on this planet) were intelligently designed by a creator.
ssadi says2016-03-08T23:37:49.7125685Z
Triangle. 128b! First, I won't expect respect from you, but at least don't be disrespectful. Otherwise I will just ignore you! Second, I have proven there that the universe must be created by a creator! Third, if you don't have any problem with that, then now we can come to creationism vs evolution.
triangle.128k says2016-03-08T23:47:12.4549758Z
@ssadi Don't be so thin-skinned, I am not debating the existence of god right now because this poll topic is clearly not about god's existence.
reece says2016-03-08T23:48:04.4114335Z
@NewLifeChristian His intelligence must of been limited then.
triangle.128k says2016-03-08T23:48:42.8107550Z
@reece Too many people aren't aware of the FSM's pasta spirit ): dang infidels
reece says2016-03-08T23:53:36.7779555Z
@triangle.128k Without evolution, we wouldn't be able to make spaghetti goodness.
ssadi says2016-03-09T05:24:32.9046739Z
@triangle.128.K! Don't you know what the Intelligent design argument is about? It is exactly about existence of God. And the poll is certainly not about evolution. Read it again, it is about intelligent design, yes or no. It is you trying to troll the poll bringing in the evolution..
reece says2016-03-09T07:42:32.9127811Z
@ssadi NewLifeChristian (the person that made the poll) Was the first one to bring up and argue against evolution. NewLifeChristian probably made this poll for that reason, to argue against evolution.
ssadi says2016-03-09T07:49:56.4387879Z
@reece! That is their comment for their vote, not the subject of the poll... The poll is certainly about an argument for existence of a creator known as "Intelligent Design" argument, contrary to what @triangle.128k claims that it is not..
reece says2016-03-09T07:59:16.8519571Z
@ssadi The poll can be interpreted the way the arguments are conducted. It's about context
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:01:15.7738063Z
@reece! Is the claim that the poll is not about existence of God true?
reece says2016-03-09T08:12:25.1302696Z
@ssadi In their context, they weren't considering evolution a form of creation. Evolution can be considered a process of creation. That would fall under deism.
reece says2016-03-09T08:19:35.2874270Z
Define existence if god doesn't intervene within the universe?
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:20:50.6515101Z
@reece! That is not an answer to my question.. Besides, the context of the poll (not comments) was exactly about argument/s for existence of a creator, including the referenced paper..
reece says2016-03-09T08:22:14.0240683Z
@ssadi Read above.
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:24:29.7549146Z
No, He does intervene within the universe.. The referenced paper is talking about an example for intelligent design of hands...
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:29:19.6341811Z
@reece! Triangle.128k: "...This poll topic is clearly not about god's existence." If you see they claim that THIS POLL TOPIC is clearly not about god's existence. Is that true?
reece says2016-03-09T08:29:54.5790771Z
@ssadi Again, it depends on how the argument is conducted. It depends on context.
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:30:59.6483455Z
@reece! The poll topic is clearly about "Intelligent Design" argument whose MAIN AIM is to PROVE EXISTENCE OF GOD, and not a deistic god...
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:32:42.7201883Z
If you say context of comments, then I may agree.. But not the context of the poll topic, is that right?
reece says2016-03-09T08:33:47.9576928Z
@ssadi If you're that insecure, you should talk to NewLifeChristian and triangle.128k about it.
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:36:34.9165419Z
@reece! That is what I did, before you made a baseless objection. @triangle.128k: "There's no evidence, there's only distortions of current evidence to "prove" intelligent design." My comment was about this challenge of @triangle.128k, is there anything about evolution in this comment? No, it is all about if there is any evidence that proves intelligent design argument. And I gave a link to start with..
reece says2016-03-09T08:38:22.3720971Z
@ssadi "If you say context of comments, then I may agree.. But not the context of the poll topic, is that right?" Yes, i thought that would of been obvious.
reece says2016-03-09T08:42:55.0982899Z
He never went into detail. He was generalizing. You're picking irrelevant details.
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:43:21.8373755Z
@reece! That is why your objections to my comments are irrelevant :)
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:45:17.2023335Z
@reece! Are you sure? @triangle.128k: " Give any evidence you have..."
reece says2016-03-09T08:57:29.6884064Z
@ssadi They weren't irrelevant. I was seeing if you were intelligent enough to pick up on your own hypocrisy. It seems you have, but you're trying to down play it.
ssadi says2016-03-09T08:59:10.2636935Z
@reece! Let me ask you a simple question.. What is your main point?
reece says2016-03-09T09:05:17.4347079Z
@ssadi What i said up above. Now good day sir. I have PoE to play.
ssadi says2016-03-09T09:10:01.4416253Z
@reece: "@ssadi NewLifeChristian (the person that made the poll) Was the first one to bring up and argue against evolution. NewLifeChristian probably made this poll for that reason, to argue against evolution." And @triangle.128k asked for evidence for "Intelligent Design"... So, your comment was completely irrelevant!! Thank you, enjoy your playing!!!
reece says2016-03-09T14:07:31.4176699Z
@ssadi Okay, i was wrong. You totally missed the hypocrisy i was trying to point out.
RandomObserver says2016-03-09T20:54:19.5885824Z
We use the scientific method when we observe the evidence around us and extrapolate what might happen in the future (or what might have happened in the past). The evidence suggests that the universe we know may have expanded from a single point, and life on earth may have evolved. Even if the Bible did not exist, it would be reasonable to look at the evidence and wonder if some greater power set all this in motion. That (by the way) is what I believe, but I was never able to accept the literal translation of the Genesis story. I believe God told the story in imprecise terms that would make sense to His audience then, and for many generations. The scientific method can suggest the sequence of events, but the scientific method cannot be used to prove that an intelligent entity set it in motion. Anything that you point to as "too perfect to be coincidence" (like the structure of the hand) can just as easily be explained as the result of genetic events and natural selection (or a visit from an interstellar alien species).
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-09T21:57:06.5684695Z
reece says2016-03-10T03:18:16.0846513Z
@NewLifeChristian the article pretty much says - We don't know, there for "developmental constraints."
reece says2016-03-10T03:21:54.4860513Z
It didn't seem like God went back to the drawing board.
RandomObserver says2016-03-10T03:44:04.9576380Z
After reading the article, I have to say Dr Bergman explained why its initial position might have led to this inefficient loop through the chest cavity, but he never explained why an intelligent designer would not have established a more direct route without those developmental entanglements. At least Prothero's article (which he was trying to refute) offered a theory that it might have evolved from earlier forms.
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-10T21:44:08.6747363Z
@reece And you're saying that the evolutionists aren't making assumptions, as well? Their assumption is that the seemingly "poor" design proves evolutionism. Before you make accusations against the creationists, think about how the same thing could apply to the evolutionists . . .
reece says2016-03-10T21:50:02.3487915Z
@NewLifeChristian Science isn't about proving things. It's about disproving things. Can you disprove i have a magic dragon in my garage? If not, it's not worth it.
SamStevens says2016-03-10T22:48:13.1722975Z
Newlifechristian, to what extent is change permitted? Does change stop at the species level? What is stopping a small feathered dinosaur from gradually adopting an arboreal existence in which the arms and feathers change in such a way to pave the future for gliding and, eventually, powered flight? Or is this impossible since it has not been observed?
Venomfyre says2016-03-13T16:11:19.1120262Z
I can't believe this is considered a debate and that "intelligent design" is considered a "theory" on par with evolution, despite the only thing stopping evolution being considered "fact" is our pathetically short lifespans preventing us from observing it.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.