Intelligent design theory, PROVEN

Well kinda sorta.

There are many peer reviewed articles out about ID now, they have peer reviews, so its a theory, if we understand theory as evidence, does it make it a proven science?
Of course its not empirical evidence, like what I would expect from a real proven scientific fact. It is evidence, it is a theory, am I repeating myself to much

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.discovery.org...

journals.plos.org...

Now a theory is

plato.stanford.edu...

www.geo.sunysb.edu...

www.nap.edu...

So there we have a scientific theory, it has peer reviews and it is clear and precise in its explanations.

Now to borrow from NI

originally posted by: Noinden



" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]" From Wikipedia(yet I include the citations they use, least you try the "don't trust Wikipedia fallacy).



(1) National Academy of Sciences, 1999 (www.nap.edu...)
(2) "The Structure of Scientific Theories" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu...)
(2) Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science" (www.geo.sunysb.edu...)

So Intelligent Design is a theory, it has evidence, peer reviewed so cant be ignored as a faith anymore, scientific evidence as listed.

www.faithandevolution.org...


So feel free to shred, tear, rip up at it gents.

Evidence, theory, science.

Our DNA is constantly interacting with the frequency and signals of this planet. All life here contributes to the signal and also all weather patterns interact, every quake, every wave hitting the shore is included in this collective conscious of the earth. If this signal is altered in a major way it can effect the way things form. Even our planet's magnetic field contributes.

This collective conscious can vary from place to place, Upping the signal changes our consciousness too, when the energy increases, chaos in the world erupts. Those who have different genetics now become healthier when once they were sick.

So could this collective consciousness be what people called god, or the mother earth, which is a part of god. I think it can. Now god might be the collective consciousness or frequency of the universe, something that organizes life everywhere.

Now this is just a possible explanation, but to me it sounds feasable. If the energy frequency of this planet is lowered too much it could turn like Mars, if it is too wild it can turn like Venus.

I know this doesn't match religion or science of evolution, but I'm sorry if I think both of those are flawed beyond repair. If you take what they were trying to explain in the bible about creation and apply it to them trying to tell people basically how things started, I think it might be something that would have helped people explain how everything started.

So can this collective consciousness communicate with us? Probably not consciously but subconsciously I think it can. It would be great if we could tie into it and understand all that everything living on this planet knows. But remember, can you comprehend what your cat is thinking or what someone thinking in a different language and culture thinks? I doubt if anyone could tap into this completely.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well kinda sorta

Either it is proven, or it is not.

To the data;

Extract from the conclusions of the first paper, note the distinct lack of any reference to ID.

Evolution has myriad facets, and this one is worthy of some notice.

The second source as far as I can tell is determining some large numbers in an attempt to suggest improbability, phhhttt, whateva.

The third source, from the Discovery Institute, and part of their fully unbiased and impartial mission statement;

The mission of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture is to advance the understanding that human beings and nature are the result of intelligent design

Yep, fully believing that one.

And from the last source you may have missed the Retraction;

Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.

Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.

Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.

The editors apologize to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process.

Mmmmm, yeah, Not Proven.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

a reply to: Raggedyman

Where's the proof? Care to sum up the arguments in the many links you have given.

Of course its not empirical evidence, like what I would expect from a real proven scientific fact. It is evidence, it is a theory, am I repeating myself to much

Again, where is the proof?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Even if creationism was possible,it still doesn't prove that your specific deity exists.
It only shows that the universe we exist in was created by some sort of intelligence,that intelligence as far as anyone should be concerned could be anything. Hell,it could even be mortal.

And your citations also acknowledge that evolutionary biology is the best explanation for the diversity of life,much of the Creationist hypothesis is based upon causality for the origin of life. They also don't seem to understand how gene mutations work. We honestly don't need a new causal theory to explain the origin of life,But hey if there's empirical evidence to prove this than I and many atheists would have to concede.

a reply to: Raggedyman

So Intelligent Design is a theory, it has evidence, peer reviewed so cant be ignored as a faith anymore, scientific evidence as listed.

what utter twaddle

I think there is ample evidence for a Prime Mover or God, but as to what form that being takes I have no idea. I will remain open minded awaiting new evidence.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Raggedyman

So Intelligent Design is a theory, it has evidence, peer reviewed so cant be ignored as a faith anymore, scientific evidence as listed.

what utter twaddle

I thought you folks hated religion not God? I have no use for religion either, but God probably doesn't have a religion either. I find it unlikely that an omnipotent being would relegate Itself to one particular dogma.

I always thought the proof was in the peanut butter.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I think intelligent design is an abomination if its not controlled, i have a great fiction book on the topic called Frankensteins Monster

originally posted by: PanPiper
a reply to: Raggedyman

I think intelligent design is an abomination if its not controlled, i have a great fiction book on the topic called Frankensteins Monster

Yes, we saw how your heavy handed control would work on your population control thread. I'm sure it is a heck of a read Mr Stalin.

a reply to: Metallicus

Well it didnt cause i made it into a choice..

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well kinda sorta

Either it is proven, or it is not.

To the data;

Extract from the conclusions of the first paper, note the distinct lack of any reference to ID.

Evolution has myriad facets, and this one is worthy of some notice.

The second source as far as I can tell is determining some large numbers in an attempt to suggest improbability, phhhttt, whateva.

The third source, from the Discovery Institute, and part of their fully unbiased and impartial mission statement;

The mission of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture is to advance the understanding that human beings and nature are the result of intelligent design

Yep, fully believing that one.

And from the last source you may have missed the Retraction;

Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.

Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.

Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.

The editors apologize to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process.

Mmmmm, yeah, Not Proven.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

I only listed a few of many, didnt you read that part?

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: Raggedyman

Even if creationism was possible,it still doesn't prove that your specific deity exists.
It only shows that the universe we exist in was created by some sort of intelligence,that intelligence as far as anyone should be concerned could be anything. Hell,it could even be mortal.

And your citations also acknowledge that evolutionary biology is the best explanation for the diversity of life,much of the Creationist hypothesis is based upon causality for the origin of life. They also don't seem to understand how gene mutations work. We honestly don't need a new causal theory to explain the origin of life,But hey if there's empirical evidence to prove this than I and many atheists would have to concede.

Its called Intelligent Design, you can claim aliens for all I care.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Sweet!

originally posted by: Raggedyman
www.sciencedirect.com...

I'm not a molecular biologist - what does any of that preamble have to do with intelligent design? And why do I need to pay $35.95 to read the article??

journals.plos.org...

This is not a very scientific study:

...connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks

So this "scientist" has already assumed there is a creator and that his research is to prove/substantiate the creator. Somewhat biased approach.

Can't be arsed to read the rest....

a reply to: Raggedyman

I only listed a few of many, didnt you read that part?

Yes I did read that.

Since it's your thread the onus is upon you to demonstrate proof. I presume you linked the most proovie ones.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Raggedyman

So Intelligent Design is a theory, it has evidence, peer reviewed so cant be ignored as a faith anymore, scientific evidence as listed.

what utter twaddle

I thought you folks hated religion not God? I have no use for religion either, but God probably doesn't have a religion either. I find it unlikely that an omnipotent being would relegate Itself to one particular dogma.

How can I hate something that doesn't exist?

a reply to: Raggedyman

I actually enjoyed reading the articles and particularly The Structure of Science Theory.

Meyer's always Meyer though isn't he? However he crunches his numbers, his sub-total is always 'Intelligent Design.' It's like a Hall of Mirrors or:



The abstract on protein folding doesn't appear to relate to ID. Have you read the full article?

I think you've mistaken hypothesis for 'theory.' ID is a fair hypothesis and IMO it's understandable for a lot of people to believe in it. It falls short of 'Theory' by failing to be unifying or explanatory. In contrast the 'Theory' of evolution unifies the explanations for why biological life is as diverse as it is and can be used to make predictions. For example, altering the breathable atmosphere over generations of fruit fly would *probably* result in fruit flies that can't survive in a natural atmosphere. A control sample with unaltered conditions would be used to compare and then possibly another research group who wouldn't know what the atmosphere of their fruit flies was composed of.

With ID, can you think of an experiment to test the hypothesis? Is there a way of studying fruit flies that would point to an intelligent designer?

Any good ID proponent will point to the 'Big Bang' or abiogenesis and use the 'singularity' of those moments to cry foul on accepted models. Hey, it's fair enough. The thing is, most everything makes sense until those moments we can't see past. The ID hypothesis, on the other hand, breaks down almost immediately by simple logic. That it doesn't have testable, repeatable ideas also means it cannot compete in a meaningful way. In contrast, science has frequently been mistaken and often flown the flag for 'wrong' ideas. The point being that science is mostly self-correcting and progresses due to making predictions and creating models that can be tested out.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Your "evidence"

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

Link broken

www.sciencedirect.com...

A paper discussing the prevalence of enzyme folds. Has nothing to do with "intelligent design"

www.discovery.org...

A hit piece on evolution written by a guy who only writes hit pieces against evolution and Darwinism. Must I remind you that Evolution doesn't even attempt to discuss how life began? Evolution helps explain how species change over time, not where life cam from.

journals.plos.org...

A retracted study.

Retraction Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study. Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review. Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication. The editors apologize to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process. 4 Mar 2016: The PLOS ONE Staff (2016) Retraction: Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0151685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151685 View retraction

Good job.

Another failed thread with "proof"