What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?

I Don't Think So

ForLiberty-RonPaul said:
***IRONY ALERT***
Click to expand...

paulownsmccain.gif
 
Truth Warrior said:
"Brainwashing" children that "theories" are "gospel" is a catastrophic crime against humanity. :mad:
Click to expand...

I'm not getting back into this insane argument, except to repeat what "theory" actually means. It has been bastardized and watered down to mean "any yahoo's explanation of natural phenomena."

Before something is accepted as a theory in the scientific world, it goes through rigorous testing by many, many other scientists in all different places in the world, it must be repeatable.

When you're talking about a scientific theory, use the scientific definition of the word, not a layman's lazy definition of highly doubtful. Read up on how the word is used in different fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

It irritates me to no end when people can't understand how words are used differently in different contexts. When Darwin first introduced evolution, it was a hypothesis, it was only after testing, predicting, and reshaping the hypothesis that it eventually became a theory.

/rant. Carry on.
 
Hypothesis = Theory

amy31416 said:
I'm not getting back into this insane argument, except to repeat what "theory" actually means. It has been bastardized and watered down to mean "any yahoo's explanation of natural phenomena."

Before something is accepted as a theory in the scientific world, it goes through rigorous testing by many, many other scientists in all different places in the world, it must be repeatable.

When you're talking about a scientific theory, use the scientific definition of the word, not a layman's lazy definition of highly doubtful. Read up on how the word is used in different fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

It irritates me to no end when people can't understand how words are used differently in different contexts. When Darwin first introduced evolution, it was a hypothesis, it was only after testing, predicting, and reshaping the hypothesis that it eventually became a theory.

/rant. Carry on.
Click to expand...

No, a theory is a hypothesis. Once it is proven, then it becomes a scientific law, just like gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, etc. Evolutionists, in a similar manner of their theory, want to evolve the meanings of these scientific terms from their historical meanings. That's the problem.
 
amy31416 said:
I'm not getting back into this insane argument, except to repeat what "theory" actually means. It has been bastardized and watered down to mean "any yahoo's explanation of natural phenomena."

Before something is accepted as a theory in the scientific world, it goes through rigorous testing by many, many other scientists in all different places in the world, it must be repeatable.

When you're talking about a scientific theory, use the scientific definition of the word, not a layman's lazy definition of highly doubtful. Read up on how the word is used in different fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

It irritates me to no end when people can't understand how words are used differently in different contexts. When Darwin first introduced evolution, it was a hypothesis, it was only after testing, predicting, and reshaping the hypothesis that it eventually became a theory.

/rant. Carry on.
Click to expand...
Staying out of it, on your part, is probably a wise decision. :D
 
Truth Warrior said:
Staying out of it, on your part, is probably a wise decision. :D
Click to expand...

Only because I'm simply astounded at the misinformation and it's grating. If you guys can't even take the time to look up some basic definitions for words that you're bandying about, it's pointless. So, finally, if you nor Theocrat can understand a few basics and think you've "won" an argument because of it, feel free.

Theocrat said:
No, a theory is a hypothesis. Once it is proven, then it becomes a scientific law, just like gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, etc. Evolutionists, in a similar manner of their theory, want to evolve the meanings of these scientific terms from their historical meanings. That's the problem.
Click to expand...

Absolutely 100% incorrect. Law>>Theory>>>>hypothesis>>>>>>>>>>>>>crazy person's whimsical notions. A hypothesis is a potential untested theory, a partially right theory or complete crap. ID can barely qualify as a hypothesis, and certainly never a theory.

Evolution is tested and has evolved from Darwin's original theory and will continue to evolve with more testing, observations and evidence.

I have several gen chem and physics books, if you'd like I can explain it like they do verbatim for 101 classes.

Meanwhile, here's some links:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

Here's an excerpt since you brought up gravity and this thread has to do with evolution:

For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.

There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences)
Click to expand...
 
Theocrat said:
No, a theory is a hypothesis. Once it is proven, then it becomes a scientific law, just like gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, etc. Evolutionists, in a similar manner of their theory, want to evolve the meanings of these scientific terms from their historical meanings. That's the problem.
Click to expand...

No, they don't become laws.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

You still have no clue as to what a theory is.
 
Truth Warrior said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
Click to expand...

No

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
 
Last edited:
LibertyOfOne said:
Try this on for size. Same thing. Please explain to me if there is no such thing as macro evolution than why is Human chromosome number 2 the result of the fusion of primate chromosome pairs.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
Click to expand...

Do we really need to go back and cover the vast differences between "inductive" science and "deductive" science?

BTW, I have no problems with conjectures ....................... as conjectures.
 
LibertyOfOne said:
No

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
Click to expand...
I'll go with the dictionary here. It doesn't have an axe to grind. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jmdrake
Ashli Babbitt was armed and dangerous
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
566
69360
6
ClaytonB
I don't care anymore
Replies
0
Views
134
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
osan
What Do We Do About Themme?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
ClaytonB
Yes, the church of Jesus is the extreme right-wing
Replies
6
Views
249
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Anti Federalist
Satanic Temple's "Christmas" display does not last three days in Concord NH
Replies
10
Views
4K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top