I tried this thread earlier and got banned, yet race, banter, IQ, and metaphysics threads that have almost zero discussion is somehow allowed. So i'll try again. Hoping the mods dont ban me.
I have never got an actual answer out of people who claim ID methods are not science. This is mostly due to misunderstandings
>any meaningful idea needs to be a consensus
Wrong, every scientific theory started with a few people believing it, if the idea is true, explanatory and rich it doesn't matter how many people believe it at any one time.
>Design detection and teleology is not valid in science
Only if you philosophically presuppose the answer before you attempt to answer the question. ID schemes offer the possibility of teleology in the world. If darwinist naturalism is a scientific result, it must be possible for it to be wrong.
>ID doesn't explain anything
Wrong, you can use information theoretic methods to study many things that are not explanatory using strictly materialistic methods. Cryptography, Archaeology, forensics, cyber security and even SETI all use ID methods that were specified by people like Dembski. All of these fields consistently use design detection according to information theoretical methods and consistently produce new results.
>The only think that exists is matter and energy, information is projected onto the world by the human mind
This is a philosophical disagreement, give me a reason why information cant exist but things like entropy and energy can. There can just as well be a law of conservation of information as a law of conservation of energy.
>Its just religion
No, its completely areligious. It is also only metaphysical in the sense that more things can possibly exist under an ID framework. Instead of only chance and necessity, teleology is now a third option. This is almost identical to what ancient greek scientists thought, and their religious views were very different then mainstream religion today.
I have never got an actual answer out of people who claim ID methods are not science. This is mostly due to misunderstandings
>any meaningful idea needs to be a consensus
Wrong, every scientific theory started with a few people believing it, if the idea is true, explanatory and rich it doesn't matter how many people believe it at any one time.
>Design detection and teleology is not valid in science
Only if you philosophically presuppose the answer before you attempt to answer the question. ID schemes offer the possibility of teleology in the world. If darwinist naturalism is a scientific result, it must be possible for it to be wrong.
>ID doesn't explain anything
Wrong, you can use information theoretic methods to study many things that are not explanatory using strictly materialistic methods. Cryptography, Archaeology, forensics, cyber security and even SETI all use ID methods that were specified by people like Dembski. All of these fields consistently use design detection according to information theoretical methods and consistently produce new results.
>The only think that exists is matter and energy, information is projected onto the world by the human mind
This is a philosophical disagreement, give me a reason why information cant exist but things like entropy and energy can. There can just as well be a law of conservation of information as a law of conservation of energy.
>Its just religion
No, its completely areligious. It is also only metaphysical in the sense that more things can possibly exist under an ID framework. Instead of only chance and necessity, teleology is now a third option. This is almost identical to what ancient greek scientists thought, and their religious views were very different then mainstream religion today.
