General Discussion

Bolo Boffin

(23,872 posts)

11. "God did it" is not an explanation of anything. It is a suspension of explanation.

Reply to Donald Ian Rankin (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:49 PM

May 2013

"God did it" can explain everything in your view. That means it explains nothing. It's a short circuit of the scientific process.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I.D can explain more of the observed facts evolution can: how evidence works. [View all] Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 OP

Deus ex machina, literally. eShirl May 2013 #1

The peacock's tail, the extravagant proboscis of the male tblue37 May 2013 #2

"Are" is overly confident, I think. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #4

The peacock's tail as a consequence of sexual selection is also supported by HereSince1628 May 2013 #21

The Problem With That, Sir, Is That It Is Untestable The Magistrate May 2013 #3

That's a red herring, I think. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #5

If You Cannot Test The Validity Of An Explanation, It is An Article Of Faith The Magistrate May 2013 #6

Or a guess. But that's an orthogonal question to whether or not it's right. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #7

Claiming It Does Explain, Sir, Claims Validity For It, Making It An Article Of Faith The Magistrate May 2013 #10

That's not my view, stated or otherwise - was that a deliberate or an accidental misstatement? Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #13

Then This Whole Thing, Sir, Is Not Worth Disturbing the Path Of a Single Electron Over The Magistrate May 2013 #14

I strongly disagree. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #16

"I think that a lot of people don't really understand how evidence works" MattBaggins May 2013 #44

Well, no. Of course it doesn't, and I didn't say it did. Please read before commenting. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #57

you know what Intelligent Design is, don't you? CreekDog May 2013 #17

What do you mean by "scientifically strong"? Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #22

um, no zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #53

I'm afraid that's a complete non-sequitur; I think you may have misunderstood. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #54

a fine example zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #55

Please read before commenting. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #56

A perfect debunk DonB May 2013 #34

We seriously have proponents of Intelligent Design at DU?... SidDithers May 2013 #8

I've never seen any, but it's a useful illustration. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #9

"God did it" is not an explanation of anything. It is a suspension of explanation. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #11

No and yes respectively. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #12

No it is purely a suspension of explanation MattBaggins May 2013 #45

why does existence exist? DeadEyeDyck May 2013 #31

Why is yellow yellow? n/t Bolo Boffin May 2013 #40

You make a good point about the meaning of "explain" mathematic May 2013 #15

ID pretends that the Intelligent Designer is the only reasonable explanation. It's not. DetlefK May 2013 #18

I much prefer "we wouldn't be having this discussion" TrogL May 2013 #19

2 is not provable, it's wrong Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #23

For someting to be wrong-it has to be provable doesn't it? Johonny May 2013 #25

No, absolutely not. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #28

In the process of proving something right or wrong- I.E. is it provable Johonny May 2013 #33

Huh??? hobbit709 May 2013 #20

Yours is the first truly appropriate response to the OP CBGLuthier May 2013 #24

When criticising language use, make sure not to omit apostrophes... Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #29

I do believe that my intent was clear CBGLuthier May 2013 #32

Against, of course, as is made plain in the OP - try actually reading it. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #42

Bayes requires facts and relevant data MattBaggins May 2013 #47

Then try praying instead of taking antibiotics. n/t Ian David May 2013 #26

Try reading posts instead of guessing what you think they might say. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #27

I don't think anyone seems to understand what you're trying to say. n/t Ian David May 2013 #30

As a theory I.D. Is useless as it is not falsifiable. Warren Stupidity May 2013 #35

Absolutely, but I think the point is possibly better cast in terms of predictive power. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #43

So utterly wrong alarimer May 2013 #36

Intelligent Design Does NOT automatically mean "God". What part of that simple truth do you not get? KittyWampus May 2013 #37

Uh no, ID is crypto creationism. Warren Stupidity May 2013 #41

"It therefore had to exist from the very beginning since like begets like." MattBaggins May 2013 #48

Almost all of that is nonsense, apart from the last line, which is just comedy. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #49

No it isn't. MNBrewer May 2013 #38

A key requirement for a good logical theory is that it not prove too much. struggle4progress May 2013 #39

For ignorant bible-thumping republicans, perhaps SoCalDem May 2013 #46

So, I'm guessing you didn't read the OP either? N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #51

I do not need answers, I just am Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #50

Kick...nt SidDithers May 2013 #52