Why are ID advocates in this forum enthusiastic but not informative? Or am I inaccurately characterizing?

Question by Aonghas Declared Me Immature: Why are ID advocates in this forum enthusiastic but not informative? Or am I inaccurately characterizing?
Excuse me, but I hoped that being blunt would get your attention.

I am quite willing to respect anyone of the Intelligent Design position. However, I’m frustrated in that when I post questions about it (or read other’s posts), it is clear that many ID believers are here. But when I ask very basic questions about why you consider it sound science, I’m either sent to the Discovery Institute website (and told to “think for myself”, which seems an interesting contrast in some respects) OR I’m ………..not told anything. The same people who tell me that ID should be covered in science textbooks seem reluctant to explain the science to me. (I’ve asked many times over the past months HOW scientists go about testing to confirm that the “designs” seen in living things [for example] are clearly due to intelligent designer(s). In other words, I’m simply asking what how the scientific method deals with the testable hypothesis of ID theory.)

I don’t think my questions are unreasonable. SO WHY THE SILENCE WHEN I POST THEM ABOUT ID? [And just to emphasize that I’m not a hostile critic, I am quite willing to say that while “ID=creationism” is clearly true with some people, they are NOT the same things, although I can understand why small minds would struggle with the subtleties of words and their definitions.]

Unfortunately, in a short space of text you emulated several of the errors that are common among ID advocates (and which opponents usually point out with disdain.) You’ve confused value judgments as to what is more “advanced” (yes, I realize you’ve copied some of the more careless authors who should know better) and your statements about what is “obvious” are not only smug and unhelpful, they exhibit the same pontification from the superiority of a faith position that we usually label the ID fans. And there’s more…….but I’m not in the classroom at the moment so I’m on my own clock this time. But at least I’m glad that you came back to earth by realizing that evolution deals with the “how”…….and despite your sounding like the two theories are mutual exclusive, the fact is that there are many who believe in a combined model of evolution & ID, especially after struggling with the mathematical realities of evolution (which are formidable.)

Best answer:

Answer by Jeremy
Their only answer is gawd did it…that’s not science

What do you think? Answer below!

Author: admin

2 thoughts on “Why are ID advocates in this forum enthusiastic but not informative? Or am I inaccurately characterizing?

  1. ID comes straight from one’s ignorance. So there’s no science to it, let alone good science. That’s why you say you’re committing the arguments from personal ignorance/incredulity when you advocate ID. You don’t know how hypothesis A happened, therefore B hypothesis happened instead.

  2. ID is no serious science.

    There is obviously no intelligence behind nature’s design. Otherwise we wouldn’t have eyes that are less evolved than those of Cephalopods ( Octopus ), right?

    Even IF ID was serious scientific research:
    Evolution is observable fact. The theory just deals with HOW (by which mechanisms) it happened.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.