DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**taesrom** · 04-24-2011, 11:08 PM

Ok, you can start with this which has several fields intertwined. There is basically a telological question of whether life is designed. Darwinism answers the question negatively. Intelligent Design answers the question affirmatively.

How is one answer non-scientific and religious while the other is completely scientific and non-religious?

They are either the same type of answer or not. Judge Jones couldn't grasp this but he was just copying and pasting his opinion from friend of the court filings anyway.

Because teleology is not empirical. Science relies on empirical observation. Hence teleology cannot be scientific.

"Darwinism" is not any sort of science I know of--it is rather a straw man ideology. Evolutionary theory cannot possibly be used to ask the question of design--because design is teleology--and because (again) teleology is non-empirical and hence inadmissible in the field of scientific evidence.

Think of science as sort of a trial, if it helps. There's all kinds of evidence you can marshal to make your case, but there are still guiding rules on whether said evidence is admissible or not. The ability to observe, and for multiple parties to repeatedly observe, a phenomenon is the primary guiding rule for evidence admission in the court of science.

04-24-2011, 11:08 PM	#12
taesrom Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 462 Senior Member	Ok, you can start with this which has several fields intertwined. There is basically a telological question of whether life is designed. Darwinism answers the question negatively. Intelligent Design answers the question affirmatively. How is one answer non-scientific and religious while the other is completely scientific and non-religious? They are either the same type of answer or not. Judge Jones couldn't grasp this but he was just copying and pasting his opinion from friend of the court filings anyway. Because teleology is not empirical. Science relies on empirical observation. Hence teleology cannot be scientific. "Darwinism" is not any sort of science I know of--it is rather a straw man ideology. Evolutionary theory cannot possibly be used to ask the question of design--because design is teleology--and because (again) teleology is non-empirical and hence inadmissible in the field of scientific evidence. Think of science as sort of a trial, if it helps. There's all kinds of evidence you can marshal to make your case, but there are still guiding rules on whether said evidence is admissible or not. The ability to observe, and for multiple parties to repeatedly observe, a phenomenon is the primary guiding rule for evidence admission in the court of science.
	Quote