Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does intelligent design have creationist roots?
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 31 of 151 (506055)
04-22-2009 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RCS
04-22-2009 2:42 AM


Re: Innocent until proven guilty.
The point here is that ID is purely the result of xian creationists.
The validity of creationism (any version of creationism) is not the point here.
What you seem to be doing is the mysterious Yoda Dance: that gets old really quick, here.
ABE: I'm sure Huntard cares that you may consider his post puerile.
Edited by Larni, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RCS, posted 04-22-2009 2:42 AM RCS has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by traderdrew, posted 04-27-2009 4:26 PM Larni has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 32 of 151 (506566)
04-27-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Larni
04-22-2009 4:40 AM


Re: Innocent until proven guilty.
The point here is that ID is purely the result of xian creationists.
[b]That is probably true. However, this by itself does not render I.D. irrelevant as metascience.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : I'm experimenting with html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 04-22-2009 4:40 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by lyx2no, posted 04-27-2009 4:33 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 34 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2009 4:47 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 04-27-2009 6:03 PM traderdrew has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 33 of 151 (506570)
04-27-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by traderdrew
04-27-2009 4:26 PM


Re: Innocent until proven guilty.
Welcome traderdrew
[qs] Howdy [/qs] will get you
Howdy
That's the important one.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by traderdrew, posted 04-27-2009 4:26 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 34 of 151 (506574)
04-27-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by traderdrew
04-27-2009 4:26 PM


Re: Innocent until proven guilty.
However, this by itself does not render I.D. irrelevant as metascience
True, but metascience is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Science is not science if it has a spiritual component. The spiritual would effect the results and therefore void it of any significance.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by traderdrew, posted 04-27-2009 4:26 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 35 of 151 (506584)
04-27-2009 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by traderdrew
04-27-2009 4:26 PM


Re: Innocent until proven guilty.
What the hell's 'metascience'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by traderdrew, posted 04-27-2009 4:26 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2009 6:14 PM Larni has replied
 Message 38 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 10:37 AM Larni has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 36 of 151 (506586)
04-27-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Larni
04-27-2009 6:03 PM


Re: Innocent until proven guilty.
What the hell's 'metascience'?
Best I can tell it is pseudoscience BS and malarky.
Here is one guys take on it. He thinks we should conflate religion and science. He seems to think they both are equally valid worldviews and we should combine them.
Gee, sounds just like ID doesnt it.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 04-27-2009 6:03 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 04-28-2009 5:17 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 37 of 151 (506625)
04-28-2009 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Theodoric
04-27-2009 6:14 PM


Re: Innocent until proven guilty.
Gee, sounds just like ID doesnt it.
No doubt.
I beats me how any one can claim ID is anything else other than creationism.
Turning the word science into some neologism to redefine it seems an equally pointless pass time.
Edited by Larni, : Added 'pointless'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2009 6:14 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 38 of 151 (506677)
04-28-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Larni
04-27-2009 6:03 PM


Metascience
I got the term from Robin Collins.
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 04-27-2009 6:03 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Larni, posted 04-28-2009 10:51 AM traderdrew has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 39 of 151 (506681)
04-28-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 10:37 AM


Re: Metascience
Robins Collins writes:
One cost that goes along with this claim is that if the hypothesis of a transcendent designer is excluded as a matter of methodology, then one cannot claim that science (at least when it theorizes about origins) purports to tell us the truth about the world, but only that science gives us the best naturalistic story.
Here is the problem: the reason for science not answering questions about a hypothetical designer is that there is no evidence of the designer that science can study.
It's a bit like me going to a doctor and asking her to tell me what's wrong with me when I steadfastly refuse to tell her my symptoms; and then tell her she not doing 'doctoring'.
Calling science 'metascience' is simply an attempt to redefine science a la Wedge Document.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 10:37 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:01 AM Larni has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 40 of 151 (506682)
04-28-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Larni
04-28-2009 10:51 AM


Re: Metascience
the reason for science not answering questions about a hypothetical designer is that there is no evidence of the designer that science can study.
I know that. However, I.D. has given me some possible insights into the intentions of our creator. I'm not sure if my creator wants me to tell the world about some of these things. I do believe in science because it has its uses. I don't trust the people who disseminate science to the public.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Larni, posted 04-28-2009 10:51 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 04-28-2009 11:09 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 42 by Larni, posted 04-28-2009 11:10 AM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 43 by ramoss, posted 04-28-2009 11:16 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 04-28-2009 11:31 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 50 by bluescat48, posted 04-28-2009 11:59 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 151 (506684)
04-28-2009 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Metascience
However, I.D. has given me some possible insights into the intentions of our creator. I'm not sure if my creator wants me to tell the world about some of these things. I do believe in science because it has its uses. I don't trust the people who disseminate science to the public.
Fundamentalism and its illegitimate stepchild, ID, are anti-science.
They both start out with the "answers" and bend, ignore, or misrepresent scientific data until they make it all fit. This is the exact opposite of science and the scientific method.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:01 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:26 AM Coyote has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 42 of 151 (506685)
04-28-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Metascience
traderdrew writes:
However, I.D. has given me some possible insights into the intentions of our creator.
The problem here is that you assume that there is a designer to have intentions. This is putting the cart before the pony.
Rather than say "my hypothesis is that there is a designer; now I shall attempt to falsify my hypothesis" you appear to be saying "I assume my hypothesis of a designer existing is correct and now I go on to hypothesise as to it's intentions".
That is not a rational way to gather information. It's like assuming someone is guilty and then assigning the motivations she must have had to commit the crime.
In the words of the late 20th century poet philosopher Neil Tennet
"Think about it seriously; you know it makes sense".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:01 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 43 of 151 (506689)
04-28-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Metascience
Except , of course, ID is not science. It does not make any testable predictions, nor does it actually explain anything.
You get a large number of unsupported claims, and invalid attempts at trying to criticize evolution (mainly through logical fallacies), but nothing else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:01 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:31 AM ramoss has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 44 of 151 (506690)
04-28-2009 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote
04-28-2009 11:09 AM


Re: Metascience
I.D. doesn't necessarily start out with the answers. At least I haven't looked at it only from this perspective. It looks at the evidence such as biochemistry and the Cambrian explosion and the fine-tuned nature of our solar system and the rest of the universe.
We can debate the epistemological obligations of science but I can't see how science can explain everything when it MUST dismiss any and all supernatural possibilities. Neo-Darwinism is the epitemy of that sort of thought process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 04-28-2009 11:09 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Coyote, posted 04-28-2009 11:32 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 04-29-2009 6:01 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 45 of 151 (506691)
04-28-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by ramoss
04-28-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Metascience
Except , of course, ID is not science. It does not make any testable predictions, nor does it actually explain anything.
I think it explains the evidence. I agree that this could be considered to be lame but it makes me think when I engage the evidence. Remember, science requires creativity and imagination.

You get a large number of unsupported claims, and invalid attempts at trying to criticize evolution (mainly through logical fallacies), but nothing else.

I am not criticizing evolution. I just don't believe in neo-Darwinism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ramoss, posted 04-28-2009 11:16 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 04-29-2009 6:08 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024