• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

intellegent design is not a scientific theory

as a question, do intelligent design proponents then not "believe" in evolutionary science?

because if you don't think evolution is right, then evolutionary science goes down the drain. So take the snake venom example... what would you do if you were bitten by a newly discovered poisonous snake that scientists hadn't developed anti-venom for.

However, evolutionary science predicted that it belongs in a certain family of snakes, a certain genus, that most probably shares the same venom.

So would you go with evolutionary science and pick that anti-venom, or go with a random anti-venom?
 
Also....for those seeking the human missing link , and claiming falsehood in evolution based on the impression it does not exist:

Where Are Adams Bones?
 
Intuition, though a valid tool, because it exists, must be used by you to formulate a statement. But you cannot refer to the intuition as an argument, you have to refer to observations and logic applied to observations, at least.

Quite true; my reason for using the term "intuition" is because the arguments I've made are not the ones that Behe has made. Behe's arguments are invalid, but the observations and the intuition about what those observations mean, that are behind his arguments, are worthy of closer examination.

Also it has been formulated thousands years ago, and the majority of real scientists agree that: the more we know, the more we don’t know.

Well, the more we discover, the more we are cognizant of a deepening mystery, if that's what you mean.
 
as a question, do intelligent design proponents then not "believe" in evolutionary science?

I think actually most of them do; they just don't think that purely material forces can be responsible for evolution.

So would you go with evolutionary science and pick that anti-venom, or go with a random anti-venom?

Of course I'd go with the closest anti-venom available. I wouldn't necessarily hold out much hope for it working, though. But this doesn't alter my arguments in the slightest.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I think actually most of them do; they just don't think that purely material forces can be responsible for evolution.



Of course I'd go with the closest anti-venom available. I wouldn't necessarily hold out much hope for it working, though. But this doesn't alter my arguments in the slightest.

but closest anti-venom is purely based on evolutionary science. Meaning the analysis of evolution of species and how similar a species are based on that analysis. If evolution weren't true, then all the analysis behind the anti-venom would be false.

This kind of analysis isn't very faulty...consider taxonomy, all of it is built on this analysis. It has given scientists so mcuh insight into how animals are related. If evolution was wrong, what would be the explanation for all these highly detailed relationships. Attributing it to an intelligent designer doesn't give any understanding of the relationships.
 
Back
Top Bottom