Design vs. Science?

Recently I have had quite a bit of discussion on the concept of design and science. Specifically, the concept of Intelligent Design. I have the RSS feed for Jamie Kiley's Blog and this morning I noticed the following headline: Design Is Not A "Science-Stopper". Naturally, I had to check it out. Jamie wrote an excellent article on why the concept of design in nature is not contrary to science. In fact, it is only in the area of origin science that most scientists frown on factoring in intelligence and design. An except from her article:
"Critics perceive that the idea of design is a "science-stopper" that puts an end to scientific investigation. The appeal to design, in other words, is an indicator that people are throwing in the towel and invoking God to account for whatever they don’t understand. This automatic explanation It is reminiscent of tribal cultures in which God is the end-all explanation for all natural phenomena including rain patterns, flooding, and any natural disasters. But ... that is hardly a fair characterization of design theory. In fact, the process of detecting design is an empirical process that is already a part of many sciences."
I encourage all my readers to go over and check it out! In Him, David S. MacMillan III


Anonymous said...

ah will the ID people ever stop lying?

In fact there is no empirical method to detect design. I have searched the mathematical literature on this question exhaustively. The notion of "irriducible complexity" is considered by the mathematics community to be a fraud.

And in terms of the scientists using the emperical method of "Design". I have never once heard of that. Sure maybe sometimes scientist conclude that some process had to be designed, but they dont do that based on some sort of emperical test for design.

ID people try to make it sound like there is the equivalent of the chi-square test for design, when in fact no such thing exists.

Anonymous said...

anonymous: How you do go on!

I would be interested in what your background is that you can conclude a group of people are liers.

Have you reviewed both sides? Or just the side you are on?

Also, as to "irriducible complexity" being a fraud, you are wrong. Ever heard of infinity? Is this to a fraud?