Is Intelligent Design Pseudoscience?

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:40 pm

Atheist:

"creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are both pseudosciences (i.e. philosophy masquerading as science).

I don't understand why Agnostics and Atheists see Intelligent Design as pseudoscience.

jerickson314 · Post by **jerickson314** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:58 pm

Well, neither uses experimental techniques to test falsifiable conclusions. Therefore, it does not fit their definition of "science".

If you want to annoy them, start calling algebra "psuedoscience". It doesn't fit that definition, either.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:51 pm

In order to deduce much from observations, Science incorporates the logical reasoning that Philosophy provides. Without Philosophy, Science would only observe but never draw conclusions. If drawing conclusions from observations is psuedo-science, then Science can tell us nothing about the world we live in.

Kurieuo.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:10 pm

I think such claims are loads of hypocrisy. Also a bucket of hypocrisy is the argument that "it's not falsifable, so it's not science..." well, as a certain person on this site made me conclude, it depends on what you'd take as proof. Look at the atom, for example...you can't pull out a scope and say, "hey, our models are right/wrong, I do/don't see electrons...but you don't hear "don't study atoms, it's pseudoscience!" Also, as one of the buggers in The Case for a Creator points out, ID is more scientific in regards to falsifability (spelling is great) because all you have to do is find one way that a system can be created by natural means (though there are many many systems you'd have to debunk)...but with evolution, you have to debunk a seamingly infinite supply of theories. On the left you have "destroy us with one piece of evidence" and on the other "destroy us with an infinite amount of evidence"