Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The ID Theory

  1. Jul 13, 2006 #1
    This isn't a very scientific post. But I had to talk about this ....

    I thought it was a joke at first. But I read about it so many times that I'm shocked that scientists haven't spoken up against the Intelligent Design theory yet.

    The laymen being strayed by the mumbo-jumbo which seems so much more believeable to the untrained mind than the physics and mathematics of Big bang.

    I believe this theory should be argued and done away with before it gets out of hand. This theory has a plain meaningless comfort to it. Reminds me of the dark ages before science and technology took over.

    Any of you get the same feeling of dread everytime you hear of ID?

    Daring to Fly
    http://icarus3k.blogspot.com [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 13, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Scientists speak against ID all the time, but I'm willing to agree there need to be much tougher actions. Recently IAP at least made an official statement, see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=125462 .
    It's a good start, but I would like to see more...
  4. Jul 13, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    This also belongs in GD. Please make more of an effort to post in the proper forum, icarus.
  5. Jul 13, 2006 #4
    The Origins of Species have been discovered. Natural Selection, Artificial Selection, and Genetic Engineering are the primary possibilities.

    Abiogenesis is a different matter, as it is claimed to be the origin of life, as opposed to species. There is no solid theory of Abiogenesis. There are, however, many correct explanations of the origins of species, as noted above.

    ID would only make sense as a theory of Biogenesis, creation by intelligent lifeforms from exosolar planets. Of course, it doesn't really satisfy as a being a "scientific" theory - but a historical, non-scientific theory at best.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2006
  6. Jul 13, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    http://shovelbums.org/component/option,com_mospetition/Itemid,506/startpage,2/ [Broken]

    This petition was "circulated" on PF in the past year.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Jul 13, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The same kind of people have been bidding their religious-based creationism theories against scientific theories since the beginning of scientific inquiry.

    Your assumption that scientists have not publicly challenged ID is incorrect, though -- many scientists have. On the other hand, many scientists just don't feel it's worth the effort. They'd prefer to spend their time in their labs, inventing computers and unravelling biological systems and making life measurably better for man.

    ID is also mostly just a fad -- a new social meme that creationists have accepted as their new flagship -- and its popularity will eventually fade.

    - Warren
  8. Jul 13, 2006 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Most of the time, the scientific community regards the idea as so absurd as to not be worthy of their time. But the community is beginning to see the forest through the trees and realizing that if they don't combat such ideas, they become pervasive. There have been a number of op-eds in scientific magazines to that end lately.

    Contrary to chroot, I think the idea is spreading: there is certainly renewed interest in pushing it on schools (despite spectacular failures in the courts). I'm not convinced it is a fad, but even if it is, the idea will just crop up again under a new name once this incarnation is killed anyway.

    There is, however, a risk in spending too much time debating such ideas -- you validate the contention that there is a debate to be had. So the "debate" is best held outside of the normal scientific fora (journals, conferences, etc) and better done in op-eds and radio shows, off-the-cuff and out of the way of real science. That's why I'm such a big fan of Bob Park.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2006
  9. Jul 13, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, but that doesn't mean it's spreading. If all the people who previously called their views "creationist" have now unanimously decided to relabel it "ID," it cannot be said to have spread. The only way ID could actually spread is by the conversion of scientifically-minded people to creationist-minded people, but I'm not convinced that's happening.

    This is the goal of the ID crowd, of course. They want to dress up creationism in scientific-sounding terminology, and then send it, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, into elementary schools. They want to prey upon the segment of the population with the least skill in critical thought: kids.

    What bothers me most about ID -- more than the fact that it's utter nonsense -- is that they aren't targeting church congregations, or adult social organizations. Instead, they're almost universally targeting children.

    Indeed, creationism isn't going to go away anytime soon. It will come back, time and time again, always clad in different disguises.

    - Warren
  10. Jul 13, 2006 #9
    From wikipedia;

    "Intelligent design proponents say that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected."

    Haha, so in other words, what's the difference between nature doing everything by itself, and an intelligent agent doing it, if the agent is invisible because we can only see the nature but not the agent?

    And as chroot said, targeting children is a scary thing, it encourages ignorance, intelligent design doesn't answer anything, it simply covers up the real fact.
  11. Jul 13, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Maybe you just haven't been checking the right sites?

    Try These

    1)A general anti-creationist/anti ID compendium site:


    2) "Gene Expression" Lots of good stuff about the nuts and bolts of evolution, sometimes mixed with libertarian rants. Also good links.


    3) This is the MAN on cognitive evolution!


    4) And the evergreen wonder:


    On any given day yoiu have an excellent chance of seeing a reasoned attack on ID on some one of them, and sometimes on all of them!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook