Evidence for God from Science

Folks,

I have just completed another little skit on YouTube. This one deals with ID and science. Should it really be taught in schools? You be the judge. Enjoy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od6vDyDK ... tube_gdata

Another job well done Gman!!!!! I love how you do these! Keep up the good work man, and if I can ever figure out youtube I will leave you comments there too!

I'm not sure how he does it, but boy are they good!! I like how he uses the robots, and I like the way they talk, lol it is very amusing and educational. Gman, you do a very very good job with these.

cslewislover wrote:That is really great Gman!!! How do you do those??

Thanks guys...

I guess I need to let the secret out. You just create an account at xtranormal.com, setup your characters and script, and you are done. It's actually pretty easy.

http://www.xtranormal.com/

Gman wrote:

cslewislover wrote:That is really great Gman!!! How do you do those??

Thanks guys...

I guess I need to let the secret out. You just create an account at xtranormal.com, setup your characters and script, and you are done. It's actually pretty easy.

http://www.xtranormal.com/

Ha ha ha. Well that is awesome! I'll have to check out. That sounds like fun.

So would you advocate teaching (unscientific) ID/creationism in science classes?

(I presume that other controversies should be introduced as well; Geocentric theory, Expanding earth theory, Humoral theory of illness, Theory that HIV does not cause AIDS?)

... or evolutionary theory.

ageofknowledge wrote:... or evolutionary theory.

Yes, and heliocentric theory, and the germ theory of disease. Let's teach all the proper sciences as well as their unscientific corollaries.

Actually, at least geocentric theory is falsifiable so I guess it could be considered science.

touchingcloth wrote:So would you advocate teaching (unscientific) ID/creationism in science classes?

How is it unscientific?

touchingcloth wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:... or evolutionary theory.

Yes, and heliocentric theory, and the germ theory of disease. Let's teach all the proper sciences as well as their unscientific corollaries.

Actually, at least geocentric theory is falsifiable so I guess it could be considered science.

Frame that sand castle any way that makes you feel good but don't expect us to buy it afterwards. Our house is built on the rock not on the sand. Evolution as mythology:

Evolution as Mythology, Part 1 (of 5): The Theory of Evolution is a Myth
http://www.reasons.org/fossil-record/tr ... ution-myth

Evolution as Mythology, Part 2 (of 5): Evolution is not a Scientific Theory
http://www.reasons.org/fossil-record/tr ... fic-theory

Evolution as Mythology, Part 3 (of 5): The Myth of Abiogenesis
http://www.reasons.org/fossil-record/tr ... biogenesis

Evolution as Mythology, Part 4 (of 5): The Myth of Macroevolution
http://www.reasons.org/fossil-record/tr ... oevolution

Evolution as Mythology, Part 5 (of 5): Conclusion
http://www.reasons.org/fossil-record/tr ... conclusion

Enjoy!

ageofknowledge wrote: Enjoy!

Thanks for sharing that age...

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:So would you advocate teaching (unscientific) ID/creationism in science classes?

How is it unscientific?

It's unfalsifiable - there is literally no observation that could be made that is incompatible with an intelligent designer.

It lacks predictive power - what truly novel predictions flow from the ID hypothesis?

It seemingly doesn't follow on from any observation - I've heard it put both as "where we find 'design' we can conclude a designer" (which is tautological, not to mention lacking a working definition of design) & as "there is an intelligent designer, therefore we should find signs of design" (which starts to look vaguely scientific, bar the fact that the premise of there being a designer is a leap in the first place, and it has the same problem of lacking a working definition of what design actually is).

touchingcloth wrote: It's unfalsifiable - there is literally no observation that could be made that is incompatible with an intelligent designer.

It lacks predictive power - what truly novel predictions flow from the ID hypothesis?

It seemingly doesn't follow on from any observation - I've heard it put both as "where we find 'design' we can conclude a designer" (which is tautological, not to mention lacking a working definition of design) & as "there is an intelligent designer, therefore we should find signs of design" (which starts to look vaguely scientific, bar the fact that the premise of there being a designer is a leap in the first place, and it has the same problem of lacking a working definition of what design actually is).

Unfortunately that is not true...

But true scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. Can ID be falsifiable? ID is actually quite open to falsification. If we use evolution to falsify ID, all a scientist needs to do is take a bacterium without a flagellum or knock the genes out within the bacterium flagellum, then go to a lab and try to grow the bug for a long time to see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If it produces a flagellum, then ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice. But let's turn that around, how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterium flagellum? Can evolution be falsifiable also? If a scientist performed that same test using gradual evolutionary standards perhaps it would be even harder to falsify since natural selection requires a much longer time or a greater population base of parts to produce a flagellum. Perhaps it never could, scientists don't really know. ID therefore can easily be tested or falsified although it has not been falsified as of yet.

Perhaps then we could argue that the falsification of ID is evolution and that the falsification of evolution is ID? Either science shows evidence of ID, or it doesn't. ID and evolution are either both science, or neither is science. If you can't test the hypothesis of ID in biology, then you can't probably test evolution either. If evolution is immune from evidence it must simply be accepted as a belief like ID as well.

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:So would you advocate teaching (unscientific) ID/creationism in science classes?

How is it unscientific?

It's unfalsifiable - there is literally no observation that could be made that is incompatible with an intelligent designer.

It lacks predictive power - what truly novel predictions flow from the ID hypothesis?

It seemingly doesn't follow on from any observation - I've heard it put both as "where we find 'design' we can conclude a designer" (which is tautological, not to mention lacking a working definition of design) & as "there is an intelligent designer, therefore we should find signs of design" (which starts to look vaguely scientific, bar the fact that the premise of there being a designer is a leap in the first place, and it has the same problem of lacking a working definition of what design actually is).

That's not true at all. Like Gman always points out, ID is used in many scientific disciplines (archeology, anthropology, forensics, SETI, etc). Why is it that only when it comes to biology it's unscientific?

But in fact there's a growing movement in genetics that supports the use of design engineering for the purpose of better understanding biological machines (that's exactly what they call them). There is a recognition among geneticists that what they are dealing with is ever increasing in complexity and yes, design (they do not shy away from using the term at all).

If you have the time please try to listen to molecular geneticist Scott Minnich here. It's a 6 part lecture on the very subject (emphasis on bacterial flagellum). I do agree with his conclusion in the end that, at a minimum, we should be debating the issue and not shutting the door in its face (what most Darwinists are attempting to do).

(Post edit: ha ha G, your post just beat mine).