Talk:Intelligent design

2011-08-05T05:01:05Z

Pointerline: /* [http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design#cite_note-0] is a logical fallacy */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
{{protect|TK}}
[[Talk:Intelligent design/Archive-1]]

== More evidence of intelligent design ==

I would add [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/28/meet-tiny-hour-clock-blood-cells/#content this article] giving more evidence of an intelligent designer at work. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 11:05, 30 January 2011 (EST)

== [http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design#cite_note-0] is a logical fallacy ==

The reference is an argument from ignorance. It effectively posits that since there is no evidence against intelligent design, it must be true. [[User:Celigans|Celigans]] 03:03, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
:Atheism is <s>also</s> a logical fallacy; atheists think since there is no evidence against atheism that it must be true. Keyword is ''think''; they ''think'' there is no evidence against it. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 07:31, 10 April 2011 (EDT)

What? No. Atheists do not claim that evolution or atheism "must" be true. No, that is exactly what annoys atheists about religion, that it claims to know things absolutely and conclusively. And, simply to point out a logical fallacy, atheism does not have to be proven, religion does.

::What part of the reference says that?
::*"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting irreducible complexity with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes"
::I do not see how indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory is an [[argument from ignorance]]. Please explain. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:18, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't quite understand why Mr. Poor's edit summary was "to DMorris" unless he took the use of the word "also" as an indicator of me agreeing with Celigans, but I just struck out also to clear up any confusion. All I did was rightfully criticize atheism. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:11, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
:::The problem I have with this reference is that I don't see how showing that systems exhibiting irreducible complexity can arise spontaneously by purely material processes would refute ID. It might strengthen the case for evolution, but it would in no way rule out intelligent design. Therefore I don't see how it could be considered a test. Starting the article with quite a bold statement (that intelligent design is empirically testable) and backing it up with a weak reference doesn't set a good tone for the article as a whole. --[[User:JayFrancis|JayFrancis]] 21:58, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

With regards to the reference at hand: Wells' book has been disregarded as psuedo-science by the scientific community at large, and its continued existence and verification is due only to the constant circulation amongst creationists. Most of its arguments have been thoroughly refuted.
Further, it argues from the inane position that ID needs to be refuted, not proven, and that irreducible complexity is in some way this test that totally verifies ID. Irreducible complexity is not definitive proof of ID (nor is it right, numerous tests have proven it to be untrue), the same way vestigial organs, DNA records, and a gigantic fossil record that supports our understanding of evolution, etc. etc. are not definitive proof of evolution.

Talk:Intelligent design

2011-08-05T04:56:17Z

Pointerline: /* [http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design#cite_note-0] is a logical fallacy */

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Intelligent design

Talk:Intelligent design