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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193
No, Intelligent Design is not a "pseudoscience'.
Yes, Intelligent Design is a "pseudoscience".
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.
In as much ID uses real science to support its arguments, It is not pseudoscience.
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
It is. But I believe in it. Let's get this clear. Nihilism is apparently true. But is it true?