Thank you for the correction. I apologize. Here I see I began with false premise. I do still hold my first point however, which is that ID has received so much ridicule from the scientific community. I understand that there are many people who blindly say ID is the only way. But I believe there is a lot of evidence which supports ID. My original point is that if it is generally acceptable to hold an opinion which required an insane amount of chance to occur, why is it not acceptable to hold an opinion which requires that an intelligence like our own, only greater existed outside our notion of time and place.
The definition of theory does not require it to produce a testable prediction. A theory may produce a prediction but it can also just explain a fact. The testable result is the universe we are in.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
You may have some people that think that God is the answer, therefore stop trying to find an answer. I disagree, but I believe in ID. I believe we should continue to study and find answers, but so far all the answers we have found do not disprove ID. If at some point we found undeniable evidence that ID was incorrect well then things might be different. ID is nearly impossible to disprove because in order to disprove it, you must disprove the existence of God. There is a lot of evidence showing God exists, but none I know of that shows he does not. Please correct me if I am wrong.
In the Creationist version of ID, this is incorrect. Creationism states that the Being (God) that created the universe has always existed and is existence itself. God created time as well as this universe. Nothing created God, he always was. This seems completely logical to me.
Why is that ID is the recipient of so many attacks. There is nothing "unscientific" about the notion that there is an intelligence greater than ourselves that created this universe we live in. There is no single contradiction with science as we know it. It contradicts Evolutionary theory, if you call that science. The scientific method states we should start with evidence and draw our conclusions from experimentation on the evidence. Darwin began with a fundamentally flawed premise, which was to say Creation is incorrect because he didn't believe in God, therefore there must be another way. He did not prove there was no God, but yet started from this premise. It is wrong to assume that which there is no evidence for. All evidence points to Intelligent Design. The oldest known documents also back this theory up. Evolution was born from the denial of a man that made up a fantasy theory in which no God was required. Evolution has so many contradictions to evidence. Theory should be the result of experiment and observation of results. I am glad ID is making the headway it is. Evolution just doesn't follow reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the correction. I apologize. Here I see I began with false premise. I do still hold my first point however, which is that ID has received so much ridicule from the scientific community. I understand that there are many people who blindly say ID is the only way. But I believe there is a lot of evidence which supports ID. My original point is that if it is generally acceptable to hold an opinion which required an insane amount of chance to occur, why is it not acceptable to hold an opinion which requires that an intelligence like our own, only greater existed outside our notion of time and place.
The definition of theory does not require it to produce a testable prediction. A theory may produce a prediction but it can also just explain a fact. The testable result is the universe we are in. Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
You may have some people that think that God is the answer, therefore stop trying to find an answer. I disagree, but I believe in ID. I believe we should continue to study and find answers, but so far all the answers we have found do not disprove ID. If at some point we found undeniable evidence that ID was incorrect well then things might be different. ID is nearly impossible to disprove because in order to disprove it, you must disprove the existence of God. There is a lot of evidence showing God exists, but none I know of that shows he does not. Please correct me if I am wrong.
In the Creationist version of ID, this is incorrect. Creationism states that the Being (God) that created the universe has always existed and is existence itself. God created time as well as this universe. Nothing created God, he always was. This seems completely logical to me.
Why is that ID is the recipient of so many attacks. There is nothing "unscientific" about the notion that there is an intelligence greater than ourselves that created this universe we live in. There is no single contradiction with science as we know it. It contradicts Evolutionary theory, if you call that science. The scientific method states we should start with evidence and draw our conclusions from experimentation on the evidence. Darwin began with a fundamentally flawed premise, which was to say Creation is incorrect because he didn't believe in God, therefore there must be another way. He did not prove there was no God, but yet started from this premise. It is wrong to assume that which there is no evidence for. All evidence points to Intelligent Design. The oldest known documents also back this theory up. Evolution was born from the denial of a man that made up a fantasy theory in which no God was required. Evolution has so many contradictions to evidence. Theory should be the result of experiment and observation of results. I am glad ID is making the headway it is. Evolution just doesn't follow reason.