Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 152 (414575)
08-04-2007 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rob
08-04-2007 9:25 AM


We have emperical evidence for design. When we see digital and pictographical languages in archeaology we infer design. We do not suppose that wind and erosion (natural processes) etched the patterns.
And any machines that appear in the ashses, like chariots and brick cities, be they symmetrical or not, are not assumed to be natural either. We infer civilization.
And when archaeologists dig up, for example, the skull of a leopard, they infer that it's the product of natural causes, and don't go looking for the civilization which designed it.
Thanks for playing.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rob, posted 08-04-2007 9:25 AM Rob has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 62 of 152 (414576)
08-04-2007 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rob
08-04-2007 1:36 PM


Re: The great "I AM"
You don't get to have it both ways, Rob.
If god is less complex than humans, then it is not true that simple things cannot create complex things. Thus, there is no objection to evolution starting with very primitive life forms and resulting in the highly evolved life we see today.
If god is as or more complex than humans, then it is not true that god does not need a designer since if humans are too complex to arise without a designer, then god being more so is even stronger evidence of an uber-designer that created god. Thus, we have an infinite regression of designers.
Which is it? Is god more or less complex than humans?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rob, posted 08-04-2007 1:36 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 11:53 PM Rrhain has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 63 of 152 (414579)
08-04-2007 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Rrhain
08-04-2007 9:52 PM


Re: The great "I AM"
If god is as or more complex than humans, then it is not true that god does not need a designer since if humans are too complex to arise without a designer, then god being more so is even stronger evidence of an uber-designer that created god.
Why does God have to have a designer?
When all Evo debaters have to say is singularity is. It did not have to come from an absence of anything nor did it have to come from somewhere or something it is just a point in spacetime. GR does not make sense at this point so to ask where it came from is like asking what is north of the north pole.
How about we explain God the same way.
LOL
You believe that, and want us to explain God to you.
Exod 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
God said: "I AM THAT I AM" that is everything that has been, is, or ever will be.
Colo 1:17 (KJV) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This says He was before all things.
It also says by (word translated by could have been translated in, by, or through) Him all things consist.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...
Definition of consist=
archaic a : EXIST, BE b : to be capable of existing.
So this says everything exists in God The Son.
That brings me to the most interesting piece of Design that I can think of.
THE UNIVERSE
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
The trouble with the Hot Big Bang model is the trouble with all cosmology without a theory of initial conditions: it has no predictive power. Because general relativity would break down at a singularity, anything could come out of the Big Bang. So why is the
universe so homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale yet with local irregularities like
galaxies and stars. And why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing
again and expanding indefinitely. In order to be as close as we are now the rate of expansion
early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after
the Big Bang had been less by one part in 10^10, the universe would have collapsed after
a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10^10, the universe would have
been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long
enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find
some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is.
Dr. Hawking said:
quote:
In order to be as close as we are now the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately.
If the rate of expansion had been off by 1/100 billionth of a second the universe would have lasted a few million years but not enought time for life.
Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely.
I take it from this statement we are just that 1/100 billionth of a second from one of these fates.
That is amazing when you look at the precision everything is moving with. And especially when you think of all the different speeds everything in the universe is traveling at.
But I am not sure all this was designed.
I know that God The Son made it and in Him it has its existence so He holds everything where it is supposed to be.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Rrhain, posted 08-04-2007 9:52 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 08-05-2007 2:20 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 9:21 AM ICANT has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 64 of 152 (414588)
08-05-2007 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
08-04-2007 11:53 PM


Re: The great "I AM"
ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Why does God have to have a designer?
Because the claim made by the creationists is that complexity cannot arise on its own.
So where does that leave god? If god is simpler than humans, then the claim that complexity cannot arise from simpler reagents is shown to be false. If god is as or more complex than humans, then god needs a designer too because the claim is that humans are "too complex" to have arisen on their own.
You don't get to have it both ways. Either complexity arises without any designer or you necessarily have an infinite regression of designers.
Which is it?
quote:
GR does not make sense at this point
And isn't it refreshing to know that we don't look to general relativity when trying to discuss cosmogenesis?
Your error is akin to the ones creationists commonly make when trying to use evolution to explain the origin of life. Evolution does not say anything about the origin of life for it is consistent with any method of origins you care to name. Life could arise chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, extraterrestrially from alien seeding or panspermia, or any other method you care to name. So long as that life, however it managed to come into being, did not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.
So why are you trying to use relativity, which says nothing about cosmogenesis, to answer a question regarding cosmogenesis? Relativity is a result of the nature of light. It doesn't matter how light came into being, so long as it behaves the way light does.
Now, answer the question I put forward:
Is god less complex than humans or more?
You don't get to have it both ways.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 11:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2007 3:17 PM Rrhain has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 152 (414606)
08-05-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
08-04-2007 11:53 PM


Re: The great "I AM"
Hi ICANT,
You're taking Rrhain's rebuttal of Rob's position, substituting a different position in place of Rob's, then arguing that Rrhain's rebuttal doesn't rebut a position it was never intended to rebut. Rrhain is pointing out how Rob's position contains an internal contradiction. Since you're substituting a different position for Rob's that doesn't contain the same internal contradiction, naturally Rrhain's rebuttal doesn't apply to it.
Now that Rob's on vacation (presumably - he kept posting long after he said he would be leaving, and I have a picture in my mind of Mrs. Rob and all the little Rob's standing around the car yelling at Dad, who keeps saying, "Just one more message!"), if you want to respond to specific rebuttals of Rob's position you have to argue from Rob's point of view, since it otherwise becomes nonsensical. Or you could argue your own position. If that's what you're attempting to do then you should just let the rebuttals of Rob's position sit unaddressed until he gets back.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 11:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2007 3:13 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 66 of 152 (414610)
08-05-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Hyroglyphx
08-04-2007 6:09 PM


Re: No problem at all
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
I should also add that when people say ID and creationism are one and the same, how is it that Percy, an evolutionist, distinguishes the forums as pertaining to Intelligent Design or creationism?
I very much doubt that anyone has ever claimed that "ID and creationism are one and the same." YEC-ism, OEC-ism and ID are all just different types of creationism. The forums of EvC Forum each focus on a different aspect of the significant differences between creationism and science.
Obviously there is a difference. Especially when you have to consider the fact that Wells is a Moonie, which has almost no remnant of Christianity left in it.
No remnant of Christianity left? Except that Moon claims Jesus appeared to him when he was 15 and asked him to complete the ministry he began 2000 years ago.
But aside from that, how was that supposed to answer my question? You calimed that Behe is only trying to smuggle in God, specifically. I asked you why you are so sure, aside from speculation. And this was your response. I'm not seeing how IC automatically assumes the Judeo-Christian God.
...
No kidding. Who said that Discovery Inst doesn't say there is a Designer? They readily assert that. What I'm saying is that assuming the Designer does not mean that you must assume the Judeo-Christian God.
Of course IC does not automatically assumes a Judeo-Christian God, but the Discovery Institute and ID spring from Christian origins, virtually all advocates of ID are evangelical Christians, and the Discovery Institute freely admits its Christian mission, as here from their Wedge Document:
Discovery Institute writes:
"Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."
Moving on:
Behe is free to have whatever personal belief he wants. What he is also free to do is show evidence that supports the design inference. But really, what do you care? Why does it bother you to no end whether someone deduces that a Designer(s) exists?
Nobody would care what Behe (and creationists in general) believes if he would refrain from pushing his religious beliefs into public education, but he doesn't. He publishes popular press books (Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution), testifies for promotion of ID in public schools in court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), and makes public appearances advocating ID as legitimate science that should be included in education.
No science currently taught requires special dispensations from school boards or state legislatures, and this is as it should be. ID should follow the same route into public education as the science already taught there, which is by building a consensus within the scientific community.
Is his PhD less credible than anyone else's? You can't just say that he isn't a credible source simply because his view differs from yours.
Behe is not a credible scientific source for extremely good reasons. Working within the scientific community at Lehigh University (hopefully from a poorly lit and dank basement office), he knows the importance of building a scientific consensus before claiming legitimacy, yet he advocates for ID within education anyway.
What DI would like to see, is an alternative theory available for students to surmise themselves, instead of the monopoly that currently exists. You must secretly be terrified at the prospect that someone might actually believe his argument.
I don't know if "terrified" is quite the right word, but many of us are extremely concerned about creationist efforts to include Christian religious teaching in public education. DI specifically and IDists in general are lying when they say there is a controversy within science. The controversy is on a sociocultural/religious level, not a scientific one. The vast majority of practicing scientists in the relevant fields reject ID. There is no scientific consensus behind ID, yet ID specifically and creationism in general has succeeded in building a public perception that such a controversy does exist, and that the scientific community is split on the issue.
The Wikipedia entry on Project Steve makes clear the paucity of actual doubt about evolution within the scientific community:
Wikipedia on Project Steve writes:
Project Steve is a list of scientists with the name Stephen or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution." The list pokes fun at such endeavors in a "light-hearted" manner to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"
However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population, Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, since about 2/3 of the Steves are biologists.
The Project Steve (National Center for Science Education's Project Steve) list is up to 820 Steve's, while the DI list (A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism) contains 711 names. Since Steve's are about 1% of the population, that means less than 1% of scientists harbor doubts about the scientific consensus behind evolution. Can you name any scientific theory taught in public schools that has only 1% support within the scientific community? Even 10%?
It's a big deal because the DI regularly lies on the issue.
What do they regularly lie about?
About there being a controversy within the scientific community. About their goals not being religious rather than scientific in nature. The aforementioned Wedge Document bases a number of arguments upon God and Christianity.
There is a palpable fear among the masses that God not be let out of a box.
Palpable fear among the masses that God's message might be heard? In one of the most religious societies in the world? Come on!
The serious concern (not fear) is of the efforts of a religious minority to intrude their beliefs into education and public policy.
That you've ruled out a Designer before the inquiry even began. Its like you're looking for the answer of 2 + 2, all the while denying the possibility of 4 as a credible answer.
No one is ruling out a Designer (which you render with a capital D, I note). In the face of efforts to intrude ID into science education, all they're doing is noting the complete lack of scientific evidence for a Designer, or even a designer.
What is he not being honest about that you can pinpoint? If you say that he's dishonest, give me some reason to assume that.
I said this earlier, but it bears repeating. As an academic Behe understands that science moves ahead by forging consensus through replication of experiment and observation, he knows that ID has not achieved this, he knows that only a tiny proportion of scientists accept ID, yet he falsely argues there is a controversy within science and promotes the teaching of ID in public schools.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2007 6:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2007 3:34 PM Percy has replied
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2007 4:15 PM Percy has replied
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2007 6:56 PM Percy has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 67 of 152 (414621)
08-05-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Rob
08-04-2007 1:39 PM


Re: The great "I AM"
Rob,
God cannot be designed, because H is the supreme and ultimate reality.
He can't be the ultimate reality, he must've been designed. And so begins the infinate regression.
This is your problem, you can't be consistent about your own design inference, it must therefore be rejected.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Rob, posted 08-04-2007 1:39 PM Rob has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 68 of 152 (414654)
08-05-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
08-05-2007 9:21 AM


Re: The great "I AM"
Hi Percy,
I was just asking a question.
Then I thought I gave an answer to Rrhain but he did not understand it.
Then I compared God to singularity. He did not understand that.
It appears I did not articulate what I was trying to say very well.
As far as me arguing ID I am not sure I even entertain the idea of ID.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 9:21 AM Percy has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 69 of 152 (414655)
08-05-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rrhain
08-05-2007 2:20 AM


Re: The great "I AM"
Hi Rrhain,
Thanks for answering my question.
Now, answer the question I put forward:
Sorry that you did not understand my answer to your question.
quote:
Which is it? Is god more or less complex than humans?
ICANT writes:
God said:
Exod 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
"I AM THAT I AM" that is everything that has been, is, or ever will be.
Colo 1:17 (KJV) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
So this says everything exists in God The Son.
If everything that has ever been, is or ever will be exists in God The Son I would dare say that God is about as far above man as man is above a grain of sand.
Upon further review while proof reading a question poped into my mind. If God is all matter, all energy, all knowledge, all everything, would God be complex? With my finite mind I would have to say yes. But if I had an infinite mind my answer would be no.
But I have never argued for ID.
In fact I gave an example of what I would consider design. The universe in which we live. Then said I was not sure that was design as God The Son holds everything in place.
So why are you trying to use relativity, which says nothing about cosmogenesis, to answer a question regarding cosmogenesis?
Sorry that you took this:
When all Evo debaters have to say is singularity is. It did not have to come from an absence of anything nor did it have to come from somewhere or something it is just a point in spacetime. GR does not make sense at this point so to ask where it came from is like asking what is north of the north pole.
to be using GR to answer a question regarding cosmogenesis.
That statement is things I am told by Evos about singularity when I ask where it came from.
I was comparing singularity to God.
For Singularity to produce the universe it had to come from something somewhere.
Where did that something come from So now we have an infinite regression of singularities.
My question was and is,why can we not apply the same to God?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 08-05-2007 2:20 AM Rrhain has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 70 of 152 (414659)
08-05-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
08-05-2007 10:51 AM


Re: No problem at all
Hi Percy, I have a question about this statement:
he knows that only a tiny proportion of scientists accept ID, yet he falsely argues there is a controversy within science
How many scientists would it take to make it a controversy.
An illustration.
Percy lets say I pastor a church with 50 voting members. In business meeting I propose we do something, the vote is 48 for and 2 against. We do the project but these 2 members keep bringing up the project as they are still opposed to it, they just will not shut up. These 2 members make it a controversy even though they are only 4% of the voting membership. It would still be a controversy if there was a thousand voting members. But you would pay less attention to it.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 10:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2007 3:42 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 4:04 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 118 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 7:19 AM ICANT has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 71 of 152 (414662)
08-05-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICANT
08-05-2007 3:34 PM


Re: No problem at all
Surely the question should be how many does it take to get a controversy worth teaching in schools. One loudmouth may make a controversy of sorts - but he can be safely ignored when writing up a curriculum.
If you consider only the scientists directly working in the field there will be proportionately far, far, fewer than the 2 out of 50 in your example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2007 3:34 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2007 3:59 PM PaulK has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 72 of 152 (414664)
08-05-2007 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
08-05-2007 3:42 PM


Re: No problem at all
One loudmouth may make a controversy of sorts -
So are you saying one loudmouth, Behe could make a controversy in science.
However small it might be.
Considering the attention this thread is getting I think he creates quite a controversy.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2007 3:42 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 08-07-2007 3:10 AM ICANT has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 152 (414665)
08-05-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
08-04-2007 7:41 PM


Re: No problem at all
So it doesn't matter that he's part of an organisiation dedicated to doing exactly what I said ? Why ask me for evidence when you already know it ?
PaulK, you are now being dishonest. Your assertion is that Behe is trying to smuggle in God to scientific curriculum. I asked you for specific evidence that he is trying to do that, and you tell me, as a response, that he is a Fellow at DI.
My response: So what?
Why? Because DI is an Intelligent Design institute, not a creationist organization which you presupposed.
Thus, you've provided no evidence for your assertion, but consequently, have defended mine in the process.
And as you ought to know ID includes creationism. Paul Nelson is a YEC. You can't be a DI Fellow and shun the creationist camp - because part of it is firmly in the ID camp - and the DI would like to sign up the rest, too.
Because of the assertion that ID is really just creationism in guise, people such as Behe and Dembski keep creationism at an arms length distance, so as not to appear, to crazed people, such as yourself, as catering to specific creation arguments.
Obviously, there is much in common about creationism and ID. Most notably, their stance on macroevolution. That alone finds great parity among the two camps, however, that does not automatically include all aspects.
Paul Nelson is free to believe in a young earth, just as Hugh Ross is free to believe in an old earth. In fact, proponents of ID don't quibble about age estimates because its inconsequential to the task at hand.
You are taking two things and erroneously joining them together to come to a faulty conclusion.
I don't say that they are the same, the more so since I say that Behe, unlike most of the ID camp, is not a creationist. But ID includes creationism and is dominated by creationists. It just allows a few non-creationists to take part.
If Behe is not a creationist, as you now say, then what is your objection? Its one thing to disagree with ID, but its another to claim that he is really just trying to get people to believe in God.
The way I see it, of course Behe personally believes that God is the designer. He is free to believe that. What he is advocating, and I agree, that when you are coming strictly from a scientific view, you can't make pronouncements about God that is going to definitively answer any questions. All that you can do is show that design is indicative of a Designer. If people come to the conclusion that God is the Designer, as I do, so be it. But its not a requirement. The Designer could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Giant Pink and Purple Unicorn for that matter.
The point is that science is not theology, and theology is not science. I figured you would appreciate the distinguishing terms. I guess not.
So you seriously doubt that Behe believes in common descent.
How could common descent and irreducible complexity exist in the same function? Common descent says that slow gradations explain how all lifeforms are intimately connected by a single progenitor, whereas IC says that arriving at higher lifeforms from a single progenitor is impossible, being that, the removal of even part of the sum renders it ineffective.
As I said - and you evidently failed to read - Behe's argument presumes that evolution ONLY proceeds by adding parts.
Right, so how could Behe also believe in common descent when he asserts that arriving at that possibility does not logically follow?
You aksed for a specific argument made by the ID movement and a specific rebuttal - in the context of my point about the absence of ID theory. Showing that ID relied on bad anti-evolution arguments semed to be what you were asking for. Neither your question or the text you quoted immediately prior to that made any mention of "smuggling in God".
Paul, please try and follow the dialogue. Your initial sentiment was that ID is really just creationism is disguise. You claimed that Behe is a liar. I asked for specific evidence about how is lying that would justify you for calling him a liar.
Very simply, what is he lying about?
Has it ever crossed your mind that he believes in his argument? Behe could be ultimately false. That doesn't make him a liar, that makes him ill-informed. If you want to talk about Behe comes to faulty conclusions, that's an entirely different matter altogether.
He's got no significant publication record in evolutionary studies - so far as scientific journals go. Most of his arguments are published in popular level books.
Yeah, no kidding. Why do you think that is? Because they don't like what he has to say. Behe has spoken out several times about the bias that exists in mainstream science journals.
When they don't insist that the designer IS God. Which is really what its all about. Discovering that extraterrestrials engineered life on Earth wouldn't do anything to undermine materialism.
Because they aren't trying to insist that God is the Designer. They CANT make inferences like that from science. That is a theological question.
And I should add that Direct Panspermists also fall under the category of intelligent design which says nothing at all about God or any kind of deity.
The ID movement can't honestly succeed in claiming scientific proof of God - which is what they want. Undermining materialism. "Renewing" culture. Those are their goals.
What they want is what every one else wants-- the truth, and nothing but the truth. There interpretation of the evidence suggests that design is indicative of a Designer. Beyond that is up to the discretion of the reader. They aren't telling you that you need to believe in God.
If he actually did things the scientific way instead of being part of the ID campaign to undermine science education I wouldn't worry.
Why do you insist that you have the patent on science and nature? Who says he is trying to "undermine science?" ID is offering a dissenting opinion as opposed to the current monopoly.
The problem is that they don't HAVE an alternative theory.
Obviously they do, otherwise, what are we arguing about?
If anyone's terrified, it's the DI. They're the ones who make hysterical claims about being "persecuted'. They're the ones who want to skip actually doing science before getting their opinions inserted into textbooks.
Ummm, no, they want a fair shot. And you are only fueling and illustrating the very persecution you claim doesn't exist!
the ID movement has taken a lot of the theology out of its public statements. Yes it embraces a wider range of theological views than the YEC creation science movement. But it's still anti-science.
So they are scientists, who use scientific arguments, because they are 'anti-science?' Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Maybe they just think science was hijacked by people who include philosophical assumptions.
Has he admitted that his IC argument is a complete failure ?
He obviously doesn't believe that it is failure.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2007 7:41 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 4:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2007 5:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 74 of 152 (414666)
08-05-2007 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICANT
08-05-2007 3:34 PM


Re: No problem at all
ICANT writes:
An illustration.
Percy lets say I pastor a church with 50 voting members. In business meeting I propose we do something, the vote is 48 for and 2 against. We do the project but these 2 members keep bringing up the project as they are still opposed to it, they just will not shut up. These 2 members make it a controversy even though they are only 4% of the voting membership. It would still be a controversy if there was a thousand voting members. But you would pay less attention to it.
But there is no controversy within science. Creation scientists do not work within the scientific community and they do not argue and debate with other scientists in scientific venues. Because creation scientists have instead created their own alternative journals and conferences outside the scientific community, there is no interaction between creation scientists and mainstream scientists within the halls of science.
You must modify your illustration if it is to be consistent with reality. In an accurate illustration the two dissenters would never attend church services or take their issues to business meetings, but would instead go down to the village green and tell false stories about the church, like that there's a tremendous controversy there over the matter.
But let's just assume for the sake or argument that I'm wrong to deny that there's a controversy within science. Let's say there's actually a tremendous controversy, and that scientists have actually come to blows over the issue at scientific meetings and conferences. It is still less than 1% of scientists who accept ID, and most of these are not practicing biologists.
How many theories taught in public schools are accepted by less than 1% of scientists? Wouldn't you agree that the answer is none? And how many theories taught in public schools are the result of special school board or legislative action? Wouldn't you again agree that the answer is none? And so that would make creationism/ID to be the first theory taught in public schools that had the support of less than 1% of scientists and that required special school board or legislative action.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2007 3:34 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2007 5:01 PM Percy has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 75 of 152 (414669)
08-05-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
08-05-2007 10:51 AM


Re: No problem at all
Working within the scientific community at Lehigh University (hopefully from a poorly lit and dank basement office), he knows the importance of building a scientific consensus before claiming legitimacy, yet he advocates for ID within education anyway.
I am not wholly convinced by the consensus approach you outline.
If ID/creationism were to become the majority view amongst the science community would that in itself make it more 'scientific'??
I don't think so and I am not sure I believe you do either.
The issues are deeper than that. Whether we like it or not 'truth' is not a democratic decision (no matter who those deemed qulified enough to 'vote' may be).
Is your consensus based approach founded on faith in the scientific community remaining pragamtic, objective (ish) and tolerant?
If sociological factors result in the 'scientific community' becoming obviously biased in some way (e.g. creationist) does that not pose a major flaw to your argument??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 10:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 5:13 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024